I heard/read that May's backsliding on immigration points is based on our supposed inability to effectively protect our borders.
I rolled my eyes - what a piss-poor 'too hard box' rationale. We're an island FFS. It's a great deal easier than almost everywhere else.
The UK has a land border with the EU.
It's nothing to do with "protecting our borders" (whatever that means.) It's about coming up with an immigration system that's in the national interest. A points based system would be a simplistic solution for the complex needs of our economy.
I think whatever the solution we will be using a chunk of the £8.5bn to build a new immigration system, god help us.
Wasn't one of the issues around the ROI/NI issue, in the analysis of EU people coming through that border, that we don't currently track EU tourists/visitors so it would be nigh-on impossible to prevent them seeking a job (or to fine their employers as they don't have a visa to overstay).
New track everything immigration systems for the UK, and for the US under Trump, it seems.
Yes, but big changes are inevitable. We have an immigration system designed for the late 20th Century where population movements were small and largely from rich, Western countries. Commonwealth migration from c.1948-1983 notwithstanding, which was also moderated.
As Hague has said, the current migration crisis is the merest puffs of a light wind compared to the hurricane that is likely to come over the next 30-50 years and the West is going to have to respond to it.
That's one reason why I'm not necessarily against a sizeable international aid budget for the UK, provided it's targeted at geopolitical stabilisation and development of third world countries rather than being like Oxfam on acid.
Perhaps better to cancel the Int Aid budget and divert it to defence, then....
Both. We can't just hunker down, cross our fingers and hope for the best.
Personally, i think we'll have little choice but to shave back on Health and Social Welfare spending. I doubt the benign post WWII geopolitical climate/consensus (for the West at least) will last.
I see May has ditched the extra NHS funding (though health spending will remain the public and the government's top priority) as well as the points system and even left open the possibility of continued contributions to the EU today. So basically the entire Vote Leave platform other than technical BREXIT has been thrown in the trash by the PM.
I heard/read that May's backsliding on immigration points is based on our supposed inability to effectively protect our borders.
I rolled my eyes - what a piss-poor 'too hard box' rationale. We're an island FFS. It's a great deal easier than almost everywhere else.
The UK has a land border with the EU.
You can't get to the mainland without crossing the Irish Sea.
Would it be in Ireland's interest to leave the EU at the same time as the UK leaves? After all they joined at the same time and there was a reason for that.
No, especially as Ireland is in the Eurozone which the UK was not
Do we have a system for checking to see who is leaving, let alone recording it? I didn't think we did, but it has been a couple of years since I have been abroad. Wasn't there supposed to be a wonderful new computer system, e-borders or some such scheme, which got cancelled by, I think Teresa May, because it was hopeless late, over budget and no one could get it to work?
A new set of criteria for immigration will be needed and passport stamps for all entering plus a system of work permits should be easy enough to do. Providing we have the ability to chuck people out. Until we have that any discussion about who we let in seems a bit pointless.
There's no passport scan on exit, but there is one on entry. We have to have an exit border, but that wouldn't be too hard to implement. The issue, I believe, was that all of the e-border systems were different and rather than having a single provider using a single system the UK border is a mess of different operating systems and databases. That would need fixing and joined up thinking. We'd also need to ask the Irish nicely to get on board with the system and probably give them a bung to make it happen.
This is how I would have it:
Entry scan - name, passport number and date in a new entry with a blank exit date Exit scan - name and passport number matched to any open entries, exit date recorded.
Open entries could be scraped to find anyone who has overstayed their visa. We could even attach work permits to passport numbers in a clever system, so that newly opened entries could have a WP field as well.
The database could be used by employers to check passport numbers to ensure work permits are not expired or fake.
Obviously in theory it's all very simple, but in the world of public sector IT it would probably turn into a £10bn white elephant.
Dr. Foxinsox, do you think it's legitimate for one part of the country to hold the rest to ransom?
I hope Scotland remains in the UK, but if the desires of England/Wales and Scotland have diverged so much it's impossible for us to remain in one nation-state, it should end.
The UK cannot either permit Scotland to exercise veto rights over British policy, nor can it force Scotland to remain an unwilling member of the UK.
As a Leave voter, I'm somewhat more comfortable with the prospect of post-independence [for Scotland] relations, providing (as with the EU) daft sods on either side don't end up making decisions.
Edited extra bit: and it's worth noting that, when giving the vote, Scots opted to remain in the UK.
I agree with you. England should not hold the rest of the UK to ransom.
Just a point here or two
It was England and Wales
I suppose by same logic it was not ok for Scotland to hold the UK to ransom? They had a democratic right and used it so let's at least have some consistency in the debate if nothing else.
Chuka Umunna on Today calling for a reform of free movement in the wake of rising populist anti immigration parties across the EU while also stressing the vital importance of the UK maintaining some membership of the single market
An interesting interview with him, I thought.
But if the other EU states did not understand the need to make free movement work in the circumstances of today and in accordance with people's wishes in the last few years, why does he think they're going to make any changes now?
As populist parties continue to rise they will listen
"I see May has ditched the extra NHS funding (though health spending will remain the public and the government's top priority) as well as the points system and even left open the possibility of continued contributions to the EU today. So basically the entire Vote Leave platform other than technical BREXIT has been thrown in the trash by the PM."
Many in the Vote Leave operation were in the government but were not actually the government and had no authority to promise anything.
In other news, a friend of mine at work, Scottish Labour union supporter (not eligible to vote in 2014), initially supported independence after the leave vote, has now gone back to unionism. Doesn't think the EU is that important to Scotland and thinks the UK should get a half decent trade deal as well, plus UK trade deals after exit would be better than what Scotland could achieve within the EU without the UK.
Basically, independence within the EU would mean Scotland being completely sidelined but at least Scotland still has a voice within the UK, though not as powerful as he wants.
"I see May has ditched the extra NHS funding (though health spending will remain the public and the government's top priority) as well as the points system and even left open the possibility of continued contributions to the EU today. So basically the entire Vote Leave platform other than technical BREXIT has been thrown in the trash by the PM."
Many in the Vote Leave operation were in the government but were not actually the government and had no authority to promise anything.
Absolutely. Nothing that the Leave campaign 'promised' has any meaning - other than the central issue of leaving the EU. And is what will happen. The shape of the deal and future relations was always going to be a matter for negotiation between governments and institutions not the Leave board.
In other news, a friend of mine at work, Scottish Labour union supporter (not eligible to vote in 2014), initially supported independence after the leave vote, has now gone back to unionism. Doesn't think the EU is that important to Scotland and thinks the UK should get a half decent trade deal as well, plus UK trade deals after exit would be better than what Scotland could achieve within the EU without the UK.
Basically, independence within the EU would mean Scotland being completely sidelined but at least Scotland still has a voice within the UK, though not as powerful as he wants.
Ha Ha Ha , you just have to laugh at Scottish Labour , bet he supports nuclear disarmament and replacement of Trident. They are easily confused on what their principles are.
Dr. Foxinsox, do you think it's legitimate for one part of the country to hold the rest to ransom?
I hope Scotland remains in the UK, but if the desires of England/Wales and Scotland have diverged so much it's impossible for us to remain in one nation-state, it should end.
The UK cannot either permit Scotland to exercise veto rights over British policy, nor can it force Scotland to remain an unwilling member of the UK.
As a Leave voter, I'm somewhat more comfortable with the prospect of post-independence [for Scotland] relations, providing (as with the EU) daft sods on either side don't end up making decisions.
Edited extra bit: and it's worth noting that, when giving the vote, Scots opted to remain in the UK.
I agree with you. England should not hold the rest of the UK to ransom.
Just a point here or two
It was England and Wales
I suppose by same logic it was not ok for Scotland to hold the UK to ransom? They had a democratic right and used it so let's at least have some consistency in the debate if nothing else.
The United Kingdom voted for Leave - as a result sanctioned by the UK Parliament.
"I see May has ditched the extra NHS funding (though health spending will remain the public and the government's top priority) as well as the points system and even left open the possibility of continued contributions to the EU today. So basically the entire Vote Leave platform other than technical BREXIT has been thrown in the trash by the PM."
Many in the Vote Leave operation were in the government but were not actually the government and had no authority to promise anything.
Indeed and now we have a PM who backed Remain she is free to throw the Vote Leave platform away as she never committed to anything in it
Not complex - just badly made point given you were first talking about barriers to tourism.
But is it really worth the bureaucracy involved to give someone a visa specifically allowing them to work in Starbucks, as current work visas do?
I suspect that what we will end up with is a work permit that allows any kind of work, anywhere, that only EU citizens can apply for. There will be conditions (not being on benefits) but 90% of people will meet them.
I'd be happy with something like that. But the question is will EU nations reciprocate? Are all EU-27 countries going to enact a new visa system specifically for UK nationals?
As I mentioned down thread, we need about half a dozen or so in order to cover pretty much all the bases. All those countries have more of their nationals here than vice versa (though France is ~ a wash).
If you're suggesting that they'll be forced to treat us en bloc, there may be an issue.
I think the EU will insist on a common Schengen immigration policy for the UK that reciprocates our most restrictive policy. So if we happily allow in Germans for example but restrict Bulgarians their policy for the whole of Schengen will match our Bulgarian policy.
Do we have a system for checking to see who is leaving, let alone recording it? I didn't think we did, but it has been a couple of years since I have been abroad. Wasn't there supposed to be a wonderful new computer system, e-borders or some such scheme, which got cancelled by, I think Teresa May, because it was hopeless late, over budget and no one could get it to work?
A new set of criteria for immigration will be needed and passport stamps for all entering plus a system of work permits should be easy enough to do. Providing we have the ability to chuck people out. Until we have that any discussion about who we let in seems a bit pointless.
There's no passport scan on exit, but there is one on entry. We have to have an exit border, but that wouldn't be too hard to implement. The issue, I believe, was that all of the e-border systems were different and rather than having a single provider using a single system the UK border is a mess of different operating systems and databases. That would need fixing and joined up thinking. We'd also need to ask the Irish nicely to get on board with the system and probably give them a bung to make it happen.
This is how I would have it:
Entry scan - name, passport number and date in a new entry with a blank exit date Exit scan - name and passport number matched to any open entries, exit date recorded.
Open entries could be scraped to find anyone who has overstayed their visa. We could even attach work permits to passport numbers in a clever system, so that newly opened entries could have a WP field as well.
The database could be used by employers to check passport numbers to ensure work permits are not expired or fake.
Obviously in theory it's all very simple, but in the world of public sector IT it would probably turn into a £10bn white elephant.
I think a far less ambitious system than the one you describe did turn into a white elephant, at least no one could actually build it so that it worked.
Perhaps 80% of what we need could be obtained without having a super computer system. A stamp in the passport giving date of entry and period allowed to stay, a further stamp for work permissions (work permits would also need to be recorded on a database). Employers as now would be required to confirm eligibility to work of job applicants.
However, as I noted before unless people can be quickly removed from the UK without going through months or years in the courts then the whole thing would be a waste of time.
This is a report in the Leicester Mercury from 19th October 2009:
"A Leicester MP is leading an investigation into the harmful affects of cocaine – with the help of singer Amy Winehouse's father. The home affairs select committee, chaired by Leicester East MP Keith Vaz, will tomorrow discuss the attractions of drug taking, the impact of addiction on family and friends and methods of treating addiction. Mr Vaz said: "As part of our investigation into the cocaine trade we want to explore the human cost of drug taking, particularly on users and their families."
Not complex - just badly made point given you were first talking about barriers to tourism.
But is it really worth the bureaucracy involved to give someone a visa specifically allowing them to work in Starbucks, as current work visas do?
I suspect that what we will end up with is a work permit that allows any kind of work, anywhere, that only EU citizens can apply for. There will be conditions (not being on benefits) but 90% of people will meet them.
I'd be happy with something like that. But the question is will EU nations reciprocate? Are all EU-27 countries going to enact a new visa system specifically for UK nationals?
As I mentioned down thread, we need about half a dozen or so in order to cover pretty much all the bases. All those countries have more of their nationals here than vice versa (though France is ~ a wash).
If you're suggesting that they'll be forced to treat us en bloc, there may be an issue.
I think the EU will insist on a common Schengen immigration policy for the UK that reciprocates our most restrictive policy. So if we happily allow in Germans for example but restrict Bulgarians their policy for the whole of Schengen will match our Bulgarian policy.
The EU doesn't control national immigration policy from outside the bloc, only intrabloc movement. Schengen is also applicable to non-EU countries. I'm not sure how they would react to being told they couldn't agree preferential immigration deals with the UK because the EU are on some moral crusade. In any case, it doesn't matter because non-EU migration policy is a matter of national competence rather than an EU level competence. More europhile wishful thinking.
I think the EU will insist on a common Schengen immigration policy for the UK that reciprocates our most restrictive policy. So if we happily allow in Germans for example but restrict Bulgarians their policy for the whole of Schengen will match our Bulgarian policy.
It will be a common EU policy, surely? I don't see any possibility of anything else, and no realistic chance of the UK treating the various EU countries differently. That will surely be an absolute red line for the EU27, the Commission and the EU parliament.
I think the EU will insist on a common Schengen immigration policy for the UK that reciprocates our most restrictive policy. So if we happily allow in Germans for example but restrict Bulgarians their policy for the whole of Schengen will match our Bulgarian policy.
It will be a common EU policy, surely? I don't see any possibility of anything else, and no realistic chance of the UK treating the various EU countries differently. That will surely be an absolute red line for the EU27, the Commission and the EU parliament.
Non-EU migration policy is set at a national government level. The EU doesn't control immigration into the bloc. For example, we have different migration rules for Venezuela compared to Spain, and they have different migration rules for India compared to ours. For obvious reasons.
If the EU tried to take over national non-EU migration policy they may as well declare the project finished. There is no way nations will give that up to Brussels.
I think the EU will insist on a common Schengen immigration policy for the UK that reciprocates our most restrictive policy. So if we happily allow in Germans for example but restrict Bulgarians their policy for the whole of Schengen will match our Bulgarian policy.
It will be a common EU policy, surely? I don't see any possibility of anything else, and no realistic chance of the UK treating the various EU countries differently. That will surely be an absolute red line for the EU27, the Commission and the EU parliament.
Non-EU migration policy is set at a national government level. The EU doesn't control immigration into the bloc.
Sure, but this will be part of the exit negotiations, and I am 100% sure that they will insist on a common approach.
May made clear outside No 10 the Union was more important to her than hard BREXIT and her first visit was to see Sturgeon after all''
Music to UKIP's ears.
UKIP'S hard BREXIT position represents 30% of voters at best, they are in no position to dictate terms to the rest of the country, they are as bad as Remainers who want a second referendum
The 30% who are determined, united and certain can overcome the 70% who are neither.
Not complex - just badly made point given you were first talking about barriers to tourism.
But is it really worth the bureaucracy involved to give someone a visa specifically allowing them to work in Starbucks, as current work visas do?
I suspect that what we will end up with is a work permit that allows any kind of work, anywhere, that only EU citizens can apply for. There will be conditions (not being on benefits) but 90% of people will meet them.
I'd be happy with something like that. But the question is will EU nations reciprocate? Are all EU-27 countries going to enact a new visa system specifically for UK nationals?
As I mentioned down thread, we need about half a dozen or so in order to cover pretty much all the bases. All those countries have more of their nationals here than vice versa (though France is ~ a wash).
If you're suggesting that they'll be forced to treat us en bloc, there may be an issue.
I think the EU will insist on a common Schengen immigration policy for the UK that reciprocates our most restrictive policy. So if we happily allow in Germans for example but restrict Bulgarians their policy for the whole of Schengen will match our Bulgarian policy.
I think that is right.
Perhaps something like the system we had for the Old Commonwealth. Under 26, you can come and study and work. Over 26 you need a proper work visa.
There is no reason that should not be an easy to get work visa for Schengen citizens, or even a non-job-specific, time-limited visa once an original job has been offered and accepted. E.g. if you get a job offer you get a 3-year work visa, and can move jobs without further application within that period.
I think the EU will insist on a common Schengen immigration policy for the UK that reciprocates our most restrictive policy. So if we happily allow in Germans for example but restrict Bulgarians their policy for the whole of Schengen will match our Bulgarian policy.
It will be a common EU policy, surely? I don't see any possibility of anything else, and no realistic chance of the UK treating the various EU countries differently. That will surely be an absolute red line for the EU27, the Commission and the EU parliament.
Further, I think this will be part of the negotiations. It won't be the UK doing what it wants regardless of agreement with the EU. We will substitute one reciprocal arrangement for another. The new arrangement may give more discretion on admittance but what that discretion is and how it is applied will be agreed on a reciprocal basis. In reply to MaxPB, Schengen rules apply to the whole of Schengen (ie the whole of the EU except Ireland, I think)
I think the EU will insist on a common Schengen immigration policy for the UK that reciprocates our most restrictive policy. So if we happily allow in Germans for example but restrict Bulgarians their policy for the whole of Schengen will match our Bulgarian policy.
It will be a common EU policy, surely? I don't see any possibility of anything else, and no realistic chance of the UK treating the various EU countries differently. That will surely be an absolute red line for the EU27, the Commission and the EU parliament.
Non-EU migration policy is set at a national government level. The EU doesn't control immigration into the bloc.
Sure, but this will be part of the exit negotiations, and I am 100% sure that they will insist on a common approach.
That's on their side, if they can get Germany, who want our financial workers to boost Frankfurt, to agree with Romania who want to export unemployment to the UK, then more power to them. As for our system, income based migration is the only sensible, non-bureaucratic method that will work. We can apply that to the whole EU. They are free to reciprocate or not.
I think the EU will insist on a common Schengen immigration policy for the UK that reciprocates our most restrictive policy. So if we happily allow in Germans for example but restrict Bulgarians their policy for the whole of Schengen will match our Bulgarian policy.
It will be a common EU policy, surely? I don't see any possibility of anything else, and no realistic chance of the UK treating the various EU countries differently. That will surely be an absolute red line for the EU27, the Commission and the EU parliament.
Once we are outside the EU what competence does it have to force its members to a common immigration deal? As Mr. Max says non-EU migration is a matter for individual countries.
Now would Ireland wish to have its travel and migration arrangements with the UK dictated by Brussels? Would it want to give up arrangements that long predate the EU in order to stand four square behind, say, Bulgaria?
I think the EU will insist on a common Schengen immigration policy for the UK that reciprocates our most restrictive policy. So if we happily allow in Germans for example but restrict Bulgarians their policy for the whole of Schengen will match our Bulgarian policy.
It will be a common EU policy, surely? I don't see any possibility of anything else, and no realistic chance of the UK treating the various EU countries differently. That will surely be an absolute red line for the EU27, the Commission and the EU parliament.
Further, I think this will be part of the negotiations. It won't be the UK doing what it wants regardless of agreement with the EU. We will substitute one reciprocal arrangement for another. The new arrangement may give more discretion on admittance but what that discretion is and how it is applied will be agreed on a reciprocal basis. In reply to MaxPB, Schengen rules apply to the whole of Schengen (ie the whole of the EU except Ireland, I think)
You're conflating free movement with Schengen. One is within the EU for resettlement, the other is passportless travel for tourists. Schengen is a tool for tourists to travel hassle free across European borders, it is not a migration tool.
Now would Ireland wish to have its travel and migration arrangements with the UK dictated by Brussels? Would it want to give up arrangements that long predate the EU in order to stand four square behind, say, Bulgaria?
Of course not, but those pre-existing rights will be recognised in the treaty we sign on exit.
Once we are outside the EU what competence does it have to force its members to a common immigration deal?
The treaty that we will have signed with the 27 countries under the auspices of the EU (and probably formally incorporated into EU law).
Giving up non-EU migration policy would be a huge, huge step for national governments, I doubt there will be much appetite for it. As I said, our treatment of EU citizens is likely to be the same anyway, it's really up to them how they respond to it, some countries may be minded to reciprocate, others may not.
Edit: Richard, you know that once any form of non-EU migration control by Brussels is on the statute book the ECJ will shift the whole lot to Brussels. I find it unlikely that nations wohld agree to it, all of them have different requirements and would be loathe to give up the flexibility.
Do we have a system for checking to see who is leaving, let alone recording it? I didn't think we did, but it has been a couple of years since I have been abroad. Wasn't there supposed to be a wonderful new computer system, e-borders or some such scheme, which got cancelled by, I think Teresa May, because it was hopeless late, over budget and no one could get it to work?
A new set of criteria for immigration will be needed and passport stamps for all entering plus a system of work permits should be easy enough to do. Providing we have the ability to chuck people out. Until we have that any discussion about who we let in seems a bit pointless.
Obviously in theory it's all very simple, but in the world of public sector IT it would probably turn into a £10bn white elephant.
was my modest point, if a bit too demanding for some.
Once we are outside the EU what competence does it have to force its members to a common immigration deal?
The treaty that we will have signed with the 27 countries under the auspices of the EU (and probably formally incorporated into EU law).
Giving up non-EU migration policy would be a huge, huge step for national governments, I doubt there will be much appetite for it. As I said, our treatment of EU citizens is likely to be the same anyway, it's really up to them how they respond to it, some countries may be minded to reciprocate, others may not.
The overriding priority of the EU27 in the negotiations will be that they won't want Britain to play one country off against another.
Once we are outside the EU what competence does it have to force its members to a common immigration deal?
The treaty that we will have signed with the 27 countries under the auspices of the EU (and probably formally incorporated into EU law).
Giving up non-EU migration policy would be a huge, huge step for national governments, I doubt there will be much appetite for it. As I said, our treatment of EU citizens is likely to be the same anyway, it's really up to them how they respond to it, some countries may be minded to reciprocate, others may not.
The overriding priority of the EU27 in the negotiations will be that they won't want Britain to play one country off against another.
Come now, this can't be true. David Davis thinks he is going to negotiate individually with the countries of the EU.
I think the EU will insist on a common Schengen immigration policy for the UK that reciprocates our most restrictive policy. So if we happily allow in Germans for example but restrict Bulgarians their policy for the whole of Schengen will match our Bulgarian policy.
It will be a common EU policy, surely? I don't see any possibility of anything else, and no realistic chance of the UK treating the various EU countries differently. That will surely be an absolute red line for the EU27, the Commission and the EU parliament.
Further, I think this will be part of the negotiations. It won't be the UK doing what it wants regardless of agreement with the EU. We will substitute one reciprocal arrangement for another. The new arrangement may give more discretion on admittance but what that discretion is and how it is applied will be agreed on a reciprocal basis. In reply to MaxPB, Schengen rules apply to the whole of Schengen (ie the whole of the EU except Ireland, I think)
You're conflating free movement with Schengen. One is within the EU for resettlement, the other is passportless travel for tourists. Schengen is a tool for tourists to travel hassle free across European borders, it is not a migration tool.
Indeed, I never understood why we were not part of Schengen.
"I see May has ditched the extra NHS funding (though health spending will remain the public and the government's top priority) as well as the points system and even left open the possibility of continued contributions to the EU today. So basically the entire Vote Leave platform other than technical BREXIT has been thrown in the trash by the PM."
Many in the Vote Leave operation were in the government but were not actually the government and had no authority to promise anything.
Indeed and now we have a PM who backed Remain she is free to throw the Vote Leave platform away as she never committed to anything in it
That is true - whatever happened there was going to be a political mess, particularly around managing expectations, and especially because people raised them deliberately, but as mocked as it was, IDS was right when he admitted afterwards the promises were a series of possibilities. They just weren't presented that way, but then that is nothing new - manifestos are not binding either, and they have a firmer basis than campaign promises by disparate groups not in government.
As an aside, does anyone have any insight into why we've failed to control immigration from outside the EU? This was, after all, May's remit & supposed to be controllable -- and they can't have all been students.
I think the EU will insist on a common Schengen immigration policy for the UK that reciprocates our most restrictive policy. So if we happily allow in Germans for example but restrict Bulgarians their policy for the whole of Schengen will match our Bulgarian policy.
It will be a common EU policy, surely? I don't see any possibility of anything else, and no realistic chance of the UK treating the various EU countries differently. That will surely be an absolute red line for the EU27, the Commission and the EU parliament.
Further, I think this will be part of the negotiations. It won't be the UK doing what it wants regardless of agreement with the EU. We will substitute one reciprocal arrangement for another. The new arrangement may give more discretion on admittance but what that discretion is and how it is applied will be agreed on a reciprocal basis. In reply to MaxPB, Schengen rules apply to the whole of Schengen (ie the whole of the EU except Ireland, I think)
You're conflating free movement with Schengen. One is within the EU for resettlement, the other is passportless travel for tourists. Schengen is a tool for tourists to travel hassle free across European borders, it is not a migration tool.
I stand corrected. Residence permits are a national decision although once granted they have EU wide scope. Visas including work visas are decided by Schengen.
I think the EU will insist on a common Schengen immigration policy for the UK that reciprocates our most restrictive policy. So if we happily allow in Germans for example but restrict Bulgarians their policy for the whole of Schengen will match our Bulgarian policy.
It will be a common EU policy, surely? I don't see any possibility of anything else, and no realistic chance of the UK treating the various EU countries differently. That will surely be an absolute red line for the EU27, the Commission and the EU parliament.
Further, I think this will be part of the negotiations. It won't be the UK doing what it wants regardless of agreement with the EU. We will substitute one reciprocal arrangement for another. The new arrangement may give more discretion on admittance but what that discretion is and how it is applied will be agreed on a reciprocal basis. In reply to MaxPB, Schengen rules apply to the whole of Schengen (ie the whole of the EU except Ireland, I think)
Schengen is EU + Norway + Switzerland - UK - Ireland - Cyprus
oops + Iceland - Romania - Bulgaria.
NB Romania, Bulgaria and Cyprus are obliged to join in due course.
As an aside, does anyone have any insight into why we've failed to control immigration from outside the EU? This was, after all, May's remit & supposed to be controllable -- and they can't have all been students.
I'm pretty sure spouses loom large. Plus from the developed world, eg, ahem, bankers would get an easy entry. Plus engineers, plus other professions, etc. I'm pretty sure the Philippines is not an EU member and there are thousands of Philippinas working in eg. the health service.
Once we are outside the EU what competence does it have to force its members to a common immigration deal?
The treaty that we will have signed with the 27 countries under the auspices of the EU (and probably formally incorporated into EU law).
Giving up non-EU migration policy would be a huge, huge step for national governments, I doubt there will be much appetite for it. As I said, our treatment of EU citizens is likely to be the same anyway, it's really up to them how they respond to it, some countries may be minded to reciprocate, others may not.
The overriding priority of the EU27 in the negotiations will be that they won't want Britain to play one country off against another.
Not really, I think the overriding priority will be ensuring a decent free trade in goods deal and maybe some common framework foreign policy and military objectives. Beyond that I don't think migration will figure that much. If we leave the single market then the EU won't give us the juicy prizes of passporting and call it even.
As an aside, does anyone have any insight into why we've failed to control immigration from outside the EU? This was, after all, May's remit & supposed to be controllable -- and they can't have all been students.
Only the glib insight of 'lack of will'. They didn't get punished for it in 2015 (or at least not to the extent it prevented a win) so like austerity the tough talking but less tough acting was enough.
May made clear outside No 10 the Union was more important to her than hard BREXIT and her first visit was to see Sturgeon after all''
Music to UKIP's ears.
UKIP'S hard BREXIT position represents 30% of voters at best, they are in no position to dictate terms to the rest of the country, they are as bad as Remainers who want a second referendum
The 30% who are determined, united and certain can overcome the 70% who are neither.
Rubbish, the 30% would be crushed at a general election, that is the same total Hague and Ed Miliband got, even if it would be high for a third party which could perhaps even become the opposition party
I think the EU will insist on a common Schengen immigration policy for the UK that reciprocates our most restrictive policy. So if we happily allow in Germans for example but restrict Bulgarians their policy for the whole of Schengen will match our Bulgarian policy.
It will be a common EU policy, surely? I don't see any possibility of anything else, and no realistic chance of the UK treating the various EU countries differently. That will surely be an absolute red line for the EU27, the Commission and the EU parliament.
Further, I think this will be part of the negotiations. It won't be the UK doing what it wants regardless of agreement with the EU. We will substitute one reciprocal arrangement for another. The new arrangement may give more discretion on admittance but what that discretion is and how it is applied will be agreed on a reciprocal basis. In reply to MaxPB, Schengen rules apply to the whole of Schengen (ie the whole of the EU except Ireland, I think)
You're conflating free movement with Schengen. One is within the EU for resettlement, the other is passportless travel for tourists. Schengen is a tool for tourists to travel hassle free across European borders, it is not a migration tool.
I stand corrected. Residence permits are a national decision although once granted they have EU wide scope. Visas including work visas are decided by Schengen.
The terms of the work permit/visa are set at a national level. Not by the EU. Schengen is just the outer border control of Europe.
Now would Ireland wish to have its travel and migration arrangements with the UK dictated by Brussels? Would it want to give up arrangements that long predate the EU in order to stand four square behind, say, Bulgaria?
Of course not, but those pre-existing rights will be recognised in the treaty we sign on exit.
So it will not be a 100% common approach. The EU, by its own rules, has co competence over non-EU immigration. So how can it negotiate a treaty on that matter?
I think Don is basically right. The YouGov poll is basically right on the membership but wrong on the registered and affiliate supporters and these make the difference. It will be much tighter than the YouGov poll suggests.
"I see May has ditched the extra NHS funding (though health spending will remain the public and the government's top priority) as well as the points system and even left open the possibility of h by the PM."
Many in the Vote Leave operation were in the government but were not actually the government and had no authority to promise anything.
Indeed and now we have a PM who backed Remain she is free to throw the Vote Leave platform away as she never committed to anything in it
"That is true - whatever happened there was going to be a political mess, particularly around managing expectations, and especially because people raised them deliberately, but as mocked as it was, IDS was right when he admitted afterwards the promises were a series of possibilities. They just weren't presented that way, but then that is nothing new - manifestos are not binding either, and they have a firmer basis than campaign promises by disparate groups not in government."
True but inevitably Leave voters may rightly feel conned but with hundreds of thousands of job losses on the horizon from factories being moved to the EU by the Japanese if we leave the single market completely it is in many of their best interests
I think the EU will insist on a common Schengen immigration policy for the UK that reciprocates our most restrictive policy. So if we happily allow in Germans for example but restrict Bulgarians their policy for the whole of Schengen will match our Bulgarian policy.
It will be a common EU policy, surely? I don't see any possibility of anything else, and no realistic chance of the UK treating the various EU countries differently. That will surely be an absolute red line for the EU27, the Commission and the EU parliament.
Further, I think this will be part of the negotiations. It won't be the UK doing what it wants regardless of agreement with the EU. We will substitute one reciprocal arrangement for another. The new arrangement may give more discretion on admittance but what that discretion is and how it is applied will be agreed on a reciprocal basis. In reply to MaxPB, Schengen rules apply to the whole of Schengen (ie the whole of the EU except Ireland, I think)
You're conflating free movement with Schengen. One is within the EU for resettlement, the other is passportless travel for tourists. Schengen is a tool for tourists to travel hassle free across European borders, it is not a migration tool.
Indeed, I never understood why we were not part of Schengen.
We don't have a land border with Europe (neither do Ireland or Cyprus) so it doesn't make sense to be in Schengen. Remember that the UK border within Schengen would be a strong as the weakest member, Greece. Loads of countries have suspended Schengen for this reason.
The PMI figures are once again very encouraging and it does appear that the sudden dip in confidence that occurred with the Brexit vote has either been reversed or had minimal effect on the real economy. Forecasts of a recession this year or even next now look somewhat pessimistic even if growth is going to be a long way from stellar.
All of which is good news as far as it goes but I do hope that our government takes advantage of this relatively cheerful outlook to nail down the details of Brexit with our European friends and allies quickly. I do not think it can be a good thing for longer term investment to have such uncertainty about what the trading rules are going to be. I would urge May and the 3 Brexiteers to get on with it and bring this uncertainty to an end before the outlook gets less promising.
Some time to reflect and consider our position as well as listen to the views of others was appropriate but I would suggest that waiting until February or March next year for the triggering of the Article 50 process is not conducive to the certainty that our economy needs.
This is the one opposite the Silver Star office, the charity mentioned in reports. He seems to have more than one office. This is the one the Silver Star van parks at.
Are these streets twinned with Finchley Road, London?
As an aside, does anyone have any insight into why we've failed to control immigration from outside the EU? This was, after all, May's remit & supposed to be controllable -- and they can't have all been students.
Only the glib insight of 'lack of will'. They didn't get punished for it in 2015 (or at least not to the extent it prevented a win) so like austerity the tough talking but less tough acting was enough.
So May had a lack of will? Does not augur well. Cameron's pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands ultimately led to where we are today. The lack of a decent response on this was REMAIN's most vulnerable point.
I know there was some early success in cracking down on bogus university courses. And migration dipped (naturally) when the economy was stuttering back in 11/12. But seemed only a temporary decline...
Would really love to see some intelligence on this.
In other news, a friend of mine at work, Scottish Labour union supporter (not eligible to vote in 2014), initially supported independence after the leave vote, has now gone back to unionism. Doesn't think the EU is that important to Scotland and thinks the UK should get a half decent trade deal as well, plus UK trade deals after exit would be better than what Scotland could achieve within the EU without the UK.
Basically, independence within the EU would mean Scotland being completely sidelined but at least Scotland still has a voice within the UK, though not as powerful as he wants.
I think there will be a lot of people like that having done a brief "Grrrr" have now gone back to their default position.
But I think that's down to us not actually Brexiting yet. Things will probably change once Article 50 is actually invoked.
"A heavy-metal-loving vicar has applied for an alcohol licence for his church, saying that Jesus "turned water into wine for a reason".
Father Tom Plant, who took over as vicar of St Michael's Church in Camden, north London, in January this year, is currently waiting to hear if his application will be accepted by Camden Council."
The Church of England can still be a gloriously eccentric organisation.
Full story, if you are interested, can be found here:
The EU, by its own rules, has co competence over non-EU immigration. So how can it negotiate a treaty on that matter?
It won't. It will be the 27 EU countries who will agree a common approach. The Commission will of course very much support that, but ultimately it's not the Commission's decision. Bear in mind also that the EU parliament has a veto on the exit deal. There's not a snowflake's chance in hell that they would agree to a non-common approach.
I'm amazed that anyone seriously envisages otherwise. I'd have thought that this was a no-brainer of a prediction.
As an aside, does anyone have any insight into why we've failed to control immigration from outside the EU? This was, after all, May's remit & supposed to be controllable -- and they can't have all been students.
Only the glib insight of 'lack of will'. They didn't get punished for it in 2015 (or at least not to the extent it prevented a win) so like austerity the tough talking but less tough acting was enough.
So May had a lack of will? Does not augur well. Cameron's pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands ultimately led to where we are today. The lack of a decent response on this was REMAIN's most vulnerable point.
I know there was some early success in cracking down on bogus university courses. And migration dipped (naturally) when the economy was stuttering back in 11/12. But seemed only a temporary decline...
Would really love to see some intelligence on this.
Osborne didn't have the will. Remember that non-EU migranta tend to be highly skilled and have high wages (excluding dodgy spouses) so they boost the economy. Being unable to control EU migration and having to dole out benefits to them means that overall they were of little to no economic benefit to the UK. Keeping immigration high from non-EU countries covered that up.
Now would Ireland wish to have its travel and migration arrangements with the UK dictated by Brussels? Would it want to give up arrangements that long predate the EU in order to stand four square behind, say, Bulgaria?
Of course not, but those pre-existing rights will be recognised in the treaty we sign on exit.
So it will not be a 100% common approach. The EU, by its own rules, has co competence over non-EU immigration. So how can it negotiate a treaty on that matter?
In negotiations, one can alway create issues and rules. If the rEU think taking a common position on immigration will give them a stronger position in single market access negotiations with the UK, what is to stop them doing so? They won't have competence over our immigration, they'll just be forcing us to make a choice.
In other news, a friend of mine at work, Scottish Labour union supporter (not eligible to vote in 2014), initially supported independence after the leave vote, has now gone back to unionism. Doesn't think the EU is that important to Scotland and thinks the UK should get a half decent trade deal as well, plus UK trade deals after exit would be better than what Scotland could achieve within the EU without the UK.
Basically, independence within the EU would mean Scotland being completely sidelined but at least Scotland still has a voice within the UK, though not as powerful as he wants.
I think there will be a lot of people like that having done a brief "Grrrr" have now gone back to their default position.
But I think that's down to us not actually Brexiting yet. Things will probably change once Article 50 is actually invoked.
Brexit makes SINDY harder, as many have pointed out. But, the long-term trends in favour of Scottish independence will not abate.
If we want to protect the union, we need to think along more federal lines. For example, what UK-level institutions should base themselves in Scotland (rather than defaulting to London).
Scotland needs to be treated as a true partner in the union.
As an aside, does anyone have any insight into why we've failed to control immigration from outside the EU? This was, after all, May's remit & supposed to be controllable -- and they can't have all been students.
Because they haven't tried to control it, despite promising it in successive government manifestos. It shouldn't actually be that difficult to control in theory. Other countries like Japan manage it. The game is all about appearing to control it while not actually touching it.
If we see a drop in EU migration post-Brexit it will most likely be replaced by Non-EU migration anyway.
Once we are outside the EU what competence does it have to force its members to a common immigration deal?
The treaty that we will have signed with the 27 countries under the auspices of the EU (and probably formally incorporated into EU law).
Giving up non-EU migration policy would be a huge, huge step for national governments, I doubt there will be much appetite for it. As I said, our treatment of EU citizens is likely to be the same anyway, it's really up to them how they respond to it, some countries may be minded to reciprocate, others may not.
The overriding priority of the EU27 in the negotiations will be that they won't want Britain to play one country off against another.
Not really, I think the overriding priority will be ensuring a decent free trade in goods deal and maybe some common framework foreign policy and military objectives. Beyond that I don't think migration will figure that much. If we leave the single market then the EU won't give us the juicy prizes of passporting and call it even.
The priority of the EU member states individually is likely to be a decent trade deal, but the priority of the EU as an institution is likely to be a defensive approach so no budging ground on things like migration.
Portugal, France or Austria as individual countries don't care whether we let in Romanians or not, but Brussels does because it would be a huge blow to the project if we are given leeway. A big part of the European approach to negotiations is how much is controlled by member states vs the EU itself.
As an aside, does anyone have any insight into why we've failed to control immigration from outside the EU? This was, after all, May's remit & supposed to be controllable -- and they can't have all been students.
Only the glib insight of 'lack of will'. They didn't get punished for it in 2015 (or at least not to the extent it prevented a win) so like austerity the tough talking but less tough acting was enough.
So May had a lack of will? Does not augur well. Cameron's pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands ultimately led to where we are today. The lack of a decent response on this was REMAIN's most vulnerable point.
I know there was some early success in cracking down on bogus university courses. And migration dipped (naturally) when the economy was stuttering back in 11/12. But seemed only a temporary decline...
Would really love to see some intelligence on this.
Rest of the world immigration has been pretty flat over the last few years - to study is down, family reunion is down and to work is slightly up. Its the lack of UK emigration and high EU immigration that has kept the number high.
I think the EU will insist on a common Schengen immigration policy for the UK that reciprocates our most restrictive policy. So if we happily allow in Germans for example but restrict Bulgarians their policy for the whole of Schengen will match our Bulgarian policy.
It will be a common EU policy, surely? I don't see any possibility of anything else, and no realistic chance of the UK treating the various EU countries differently. That will surely be an absolute red line for the EU27, the Commission and the EU parliament.
Further, I think this will be part of the negotiations. It won't be the UK doing what it wants regardless of agreement with the EU. We will substitute one reciprocal arrangement for another. The new arrangement may give more discretion on admittance but what that discretion is and how it is applied will be agreed on a reciprocal basis. In reply to MaxPB, Schengen rules apply to the whole of Schengen (ie the whole of the EU except Ireland, I think)
You're conflating free movement with Schengen. One is within the EU for resettlement, the other is passportless travel for tourists. Schengen is a tool for tourists to travel hassle free across European borders, it is not a migration tool.
I stand corrected. Residence permits are a national decision although once granted they have EU wide scope. Visas including work visas are decided by Schengen.
The terms of the work permit/visa are set at a national level. Not by the EU. Schengen is just the outer border control of Europe.
Corrected again. It's pretty bad in that case. We'll need to get an agreement on this otherwise we will be at a severe disadvantage.
The EU, by its own rules, has co competence over non-EU immigration. So how can it negotiate a treaty on that matter?
It won't. It will be the 27 EU countries who will agree a common approach. The Commission will of course very much support that, but ultimately it's not the Commission's decision. Bear in mind also that the EU parliament has a veto on the exit deal. There's not a snowflake's chance in hell that they would agree to a non-common approach.
I'm amazed that anyone seriously envisages otherwise. I'd have thought that this was a no-brainer of a prediction.
I just don't think national government will want to set any precedent of single EU migration policy. I mean look at how badly the single EU asylum policy went down, it's that act of lunacy which has created huge divisions across the bloc. Giving away migration policy to Brussels will be a non-starter. As I said, it won't matter on our side, I expect the new work permit/visa rules will be applied uniformly across the bloc, the decision will be up to them.
May made clear outside No 10 the Union was more important to her than hard BREXIT and her first visit was to see Sturgeon after all''
Music to UKIP's ears.
UKIP'S hard BREXIT position represents 30% of voters at best, they are in no position to dictate terms to the rest of the country, they are as bad as Remainers who want a second referendum
The 30% who are determined, united and certain can overcome the 70% who are neither.
Rubbish, the 30% would be crushed at a general election, that is the same total Hague and Ed Miliband got, even if it would be high for a third party which could perhaps even become the opposition party
Correct - especially as many of the 30% are very likely non-voters in a GE.
As an aside, does anyone have any insight into why we've failed to control immigration from outside the EU? This was, after all, May's remit & supposed to be controllable -- and they can't have all been students.
Only the glib insight of 'lack of will'. They didn't get punished for it in 2015 (or at least not to the extent it prevented a win) so like austerity the tough talking but less tough acting was enough.
So May had a lack of will? Does not augur well. Cameron's pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands ultimately led to where we are today. The lack of a decent response on this was REMAIN's most vulnerable point.
I know there was some early success in cracking down on bogus university courses. And migration dipped (naturally) when the economy was stuttering back in 11/12. But seemed only a temporary decline...
Would really love to see some intelligence on this.
Osborne didn't have the will. Remember that non-EU migranta tend to be highly skilled and have high wages (excluding dodgy spouses) so they boost the economy. Being unable to control EU migration and having to dole out benefits to them means that overall they were of little to no economic benefit to the UK. Keeping immigration high from non-EU countries covered that up.
I was with you until you stated that EU migration was of no overall economic benefit to the UK due to "benefits". All the evidence says the complete reverse, save for the possible - but seldom actually quantified - strains on housing supply (and prices) and low-skill labour (and wages)
May made clear outside No 10 the Union was more important to her than hard BREXIT and her first visit was to see Sturgeon after all''
Music to UKIP's ears.
UKIP'S hard BREXIT position represents 30% of voters at best, they are in no position to dictate terms to the rest of the country, they are as bad as Remainers who want a second referendum
The 30% who are determined, united and certain can overcome the 70% who are neither.
Rubbish, the 30% would be crushed at a general election, that is the same total Hague and Ed Miliband got, even if it would be high for a third party which could perhaps even become the opposition party
Correct - especially as many of the 30% are very likely non-voters in a GE.
This is the one opposite the Silver Star office, the charity mentioned in reports. He seems to have more than one office. This is the one the Silver Star van parks at.
Are these streets twinned with Finchley Road, London?
As an aside, does anyone have any insight into why we've failed to control immigration from outside the EU? This was, after all, May's remit & supposed to be controllable -- and they can't have all been students.
Only the glib insight of 'lack of will'. They didn't get punished for it in 2015 (or at least not to the extent it prevented a win) so like austerity the tough talking but less tough acting was enough.
So May had a lack of will? Does not augur well. Cameron's pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands ultimately led to where we are today. The lack of a decent response on this was REMAIN's most vulnerable point.
I know there was some early success in cracking down on bogus university courses. And migration dipped (naturally) when the economy was stuttering back in 11/12. But seemed only a temporary decline...
Would really love to see some intelligence on this.
Osborne didn't have the will. Remember that non-EU migranta tend to be highly skilled and have high wages (excluding dodgy spouses) so they boost the economy. Being unable to control EU migration and having to dole out benefits to them means that overall they were of little to no economic benefit to the UK. Keeping immigration high from non-EU countries covered that up.
By 'dodgy spouses' do you mean Russian Brides or cousins from the Pind?
I think the EU will insist on a common Schengen immigration policy for the UK that reciprocates our most restrictive policy. So if we happily allow in Germans for example but restrict Bulgarians their policy for the whole of Schengen will match our Bulgarian policy.
It will be a common EU policy, surely? I don't see any possibility of anything else, and no realistic chance of the UK treating the various EU countries differently. That will surely be an absolute red line for the EU27, the Commission and the EU parliament.
Further, I think this will be part of the negotiations. It won't be the UK doing what it wants regardless of agreement with the EU. We will substitute one reciprocal arrangement for another. The new arrangement may give more discretion on admittance but what that discretion is and how it is applied will be agreed on a reciprocal basis. In reply to MaxPB, Schengen rules apply to the whole of Schengen (ie the whole of the EU except Ireland, I think)
You're conflating free movement with Schengen. One is within the EU for resettlement, the other is passportless travel for tourists. Schengen is a tool for tourists to travel hassle free across European borders, it is not a migration tool.
I stand corrected. Residence permits are a national decision although once granted they have EU wide scope. Visas including work visas are decided by Schengen.
The terms of the work permit/visa are set at a national level. Not by the EU. Schengen is just the outer border control of Europe.
Corrected again. It's pretty bad in that case. We'll need to get an agreement on this otherwise we will be at a severe disadvantage.
Nah, not really. This is the one thing that I'm least worried about, as long as our approach is uniform they'll have nothing to complain about. It's really up to them on how they react to it, some nations may be minded to give us reciprocity, others may choose to put the UK in its existing non-EU migration programmes. It is a decision for national governments.
I just don't think national government will want to set any precedent of single EU migration policy.
They won't have any choice, because there is no universe in which the Romanians, Poles and Bulgarians are going to agree to allowing us to favour Germans or Danes over their citizens. Conversely, for the Germans and Danes, it's not a red-line issue that they should have such priority; they have other pressing concerns for which they'll need support from the eastern European countries. So a common* approach on this is inevitable, even without considering the political imperative of EU solidarity.
* with the exception of the historical Irish position, which no-one objects to.
As an aside, does anyone have any insight into why we've failed to control immigration from outside the EU? This was, after all, May's remit & supposed to be controllable -- and they can't have all been students.
Only the glib insight of 'lack of will'. They didn't get punished for it in 2015 (or at least not to the extent it prevented a win) so like austerity the tough talking but less tough acting was enough.
So May had a lack of will? Does not augur well. Cameron's pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands ultimately led to where we are today. The lack of a decent response on this was REMAIN's most vulnerable point.
I know there was some early success in cracking down on bogus university courses. And migration dipped (naturally) when the economy was stuttering back in 11/12. But seemed only a temporary decline...
Would really love to see some intelligence on this.
Osborne didn't have the will. Remember that non-EU migranta tend to be highly skilled and have high wages (excluding dodgy spouses) so they boost the economy. Being unable to control EU migration and having to dole out benefits to them means that overall they were of little to no economic benefit to the UK. Keeping immigration high from non-EU countries covered that up.
By 'dodgy spouses' do you mean Russian Brides or cousins from the Pind?
The latter, of course. Russian brides spending money on Louis Vuitton handbags is probably a net gain!
As an aside, does anyone have any insight into why we've failed to control immigration from outside the EU? This was, after all, May's remit & supposed to be controllable -- and they can't have all been students.
Only the glib insight of 'lack of will'. They didn't get punished for it in 2015 (or at least not to the extent it prevented a win) so like austerity the tough talking but less tough acting was enough.
So May had a lack of will? Does not augur well. Cameron's pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands ultimately led to where we are today. The lack of a decent response on this was REMAIN's most vulnerable point.
I know there was some early success in cracking down on bogus university courses. And migration dipped (naturally) when the economy was stuttering back in 11/12. But seemed only a temporary decline...
Would really love to see some intelligence on this.
Rest of the world immigration has been pretty flat over the last few years - to study is down, family reunion is down and to work is slightly up. Its the lack of UK emigration and high EU immigration that has kept the number high.
Thank-you.
Looks like of the approx 380k non-EU immigrants - approx: a) 40k are asylum; b) 40k family; c) 100k highly skilled; d) 200k students.
So, difficult to really impact those numbers unless you want to screw the economy via c and d.
As an aside, does anyone have any insight into why we've failed to control immigration from outside the EU? This was, after all, May's remit & supposed to be controllable -- and they can't have all been students.
Only the glib insight of 'lack of will'. They didn't get punished for it in 2015 (or at least not to the extent it prevented a win) so like austerity the tough talking but less tough acting was enough.
So May had a lack of will? Does not augur well. Cameron's pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands ultimately led to where we are today. The lack of a decent response on this was REMAIN's most vulnerable point.
I know there was some early success in cracking down on bogus university courses. And migration dipped (naturally) when the economy was stuttering back in 11/12. But seemed only a temporary decline...
Would really love to see some intelligence on this.
Osborne didn't have the will. Remember that non-EU migranta tend to be highly skilled and have high wages (excluding dodgy spouses) so they boost the economy. Being unable to control EU migration and having to dole out benefits to them means that overall they were of little to no economic benefit to the UK. Keeping immigration high from non-EU countries covered that up.
By 'dodgy spouses' do you mean Russian Brides or cousins from the Pind?
Top 5 Family Reunion countries are Pakistan, India, Syria, Nepal and USA. Pakistan at the top only totals 5,700 last year however. Still anomalously high.
As an aside, does anyone have any insight into why we've failed to control immigration from outside the EU? This was, after all, May's remit & supposed to be controllable -- and they can't have all been students.
Only the glib insight of 'lack of will'. They didn't get punished for it in 2015 (or at least not to the extent it prevented a win) so like austerity the tough talking but less tough acting was enough.
So May had a lack of will? Does not augur well. Cameron's pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands ultimately led to where we are today. The lack of a decent response on this was REMAIN's most vulnerable point.
I know there was some early success in cracking down on bogus university courses. And migration dipped (naturally) when the economy was stuttering back in 11/12. But seemed only a temporary decline...
Would really love to see some intelligence on this.
Osborne didn't have the will. Remember that non-EU migranta tend to be highly skilled and have high wages (excluding dodgy spouses) so they boost the economy. Being unable to control EU migration and having to dole out benefits to them means that overall they were of little to no economic benefit to the UK. Keeping immigration high from non-EU countries covered that up.
I was with you until you stated that EU migration was of no overall economic benefit to the UK due to "benefits". All the evidence says the complete reverse, save for the possible - but seldom actually quantified - strains on housing supply (and prices) and low-skill labour (and wages)
Just wait until the government can control EU migration too, they'll work out a way to turn a chunky surplus into a loss.
I just don't think national government will want to set any precedent of single EU migration policy.
They won't have any choice, because there is no universe in which the Romanians, Poles and Bulgarians are going to agree to allowing us to favour Germans or Danes over their citizens. Conversely, for the Germans and Danes, it's not a red-line issue that they should have such priority. So a common* approach is inevitable.
* with the exception of the historical Irish position, which no-one objects to.
As I have said, our immigration policy is likely to be uniform anyway, either based on income or skills. It is their approach they need to figure out, which is a matter for them to agree or not agree on. If we have a single migration policy that advantages or disadvantages no nation (other than Ireland as you rightly point out) what will they moan about?
As an aside, does anyone have any insight into why we've failed to control immigration from outside the EU? This was, after all, May's remit & supposed to be controllable -- and they can't have all been students.
Only the glib insight of 'lack of will'. They didn't get punished for it in 2015 (or at least not to the extent it prevented a win) so like austerity the tough talking but less tough acting was enough.
So May had a lack of will? Does not augur well. Cameron's pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands ultimately led to where we are today. The lack of a decent response on this was REMAIN's most vulnerable point.
I know there was some early success in cracking down on bogus university courses. And migration dipped (naturally) when the economy was stuttering back in 11/12. But seemed only a temporary decline...
Would really love to see some intelligence on this.
Osborne didn't have the will. Remember that non-EU migranta tend to be highly skilled and have high wages (excluding dodgy spouses) so they boost the economy. Being unable to control EU migration and having to dole out benefits to them means that overall they were of little to no economic benefit to the UK. Keeping immigration high from non-EU countries covered that up.
Mrs May can no longer avoid the responsibility since she has the influence over funding for Border enforcement and student immigration etc etc.
As an aside, does anyone have any insight into why we've failed to control immigration from outside the EU? This was, after all, May's remit & supposed to be controllable -- and they can't have all been students.
We have - restrictions on visas for work (including a cap), students and spouses have all been tightened since 2010. It's hard to see how they could be tightened much further without inflicting significant economic damage or forcing Britons who wish to marry non-UK citizens to leave the country
Corrected again. It's pretty bad in that case. We'll need to get an agreement on this otherwise we will be at a severe disadvantage.
Nah, not really. This is the one thing that I'm least worried about, as long as our approach is uniform they'll have nothing to complain about. It's really up to them on how they react to it, some nations may be minded to give us reciprocity, others may choose to put the UK in its existing non-EU migration programmes. It is a decision for national governments.
OK, so you are a UK based engineering company selling equipment that requires two weeks' set-up on the customer's site. Your first job is in France, so you have to apply for a temporary secondment permit taking up to two months to go through the French bureaucracy. Your client has to make a supporting application. Your next job is Germany and they have different processes. And then you do Italy and go through their bureaucracy ...
The same applies if you employ a UK national as a support or sales person in the territory
Simply no company will continue to trade from the UK on that basis.
As an aside, does anyone have any insight into why we've failed to control immigration from outside the EU? This was, after all, May's remit & supposed to be controllable -- and they can't have all been students.
We have - restrictions on visas for work, students and spouses have all been tightened since 2010. It's hard to see how they could be tightened much further without inflicting significant economic damage or forcing Britons who wish to marry non-UK citizens to leave the country.
Yep, seems to be the case. To which some might say, but we had much lower numbers in the 90s and somehow managed then.
Aye, but that was before globalisation kicked in, along with a much greater demand for skilled, global labour in our leading industries.
The EU, by its own rules, has co competence over non-EU immigration. So how can it negotiate a treaty on that matter?
It won't. It will be the 27 EU countries who will agree a common approach. The Commission will of course very much support that, but ultimately it's not the Commission's decision. Bear in mind also that the EU parliament has a veto on the exit deal. There's not a snowflake's chance in hell that they would agree to a non-common approach.
I'm amazed that anyone seriously envisages otherwise. I'd have thought that this was a no-brainer of a prediction.
I am amazed that someone could think that the EU parliament could have a veto on something that is outside their remit.
The EU countries may have a common approach at the negotiations but as you have already stated that will, probably, entail different arrangements for Ireland. What I cannot see is how any treaty with the EU can encompass matters that are outside the competence of the EU.
As an aside, does anyone have any insight into why we've failed to control immigration from outside the EU? This was, after all, May's remit & supposed to be controllable -- and they can't have all been students.
Only the glib insight of 'lack of will'. They didn't get punished for it in 2015 (or at least not to the extent it prevented a win) so like austerity the tough talking but less tough acting was enough.
So May had a lack of will? Does not augur well. Cameron's pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands ultimately led to where we are today. The lack of a decent response on this was REMAIN's most vulnerable point.
I know there was some early success in cracking down on bogus university courses. And migration dipped (naturally) when the economy was stuttering back in 11/12. But seemed only a temporary decline...
Would really love to see some intelligence on this.
Rest of the world immigration has been pretty flat over the last few years - to study is down, family reunion is down and to work is slightly up. Its the lack of UK emigration and high EU immigration that has kept the number high.
Thank-you.
Looks like of the approx 380k non-EU immigrants - approx: a) 40k are asylum; b) 40k family; c) 100k highly skilled; d) 200k students.
So, difficult to really impact those numbers unless you want to screw the economy via c and d.
Surely the real question that we need to ask is, what are those students doing after they graduate?
If we have a single migration policy that advantages or disadvantages no nation (other than Ireland as you rightly point out) what will they moan about?
That is an interesting question, because we might want to institute a system which indirectly discriminates against citizens of some EU countries at the expense of others. In fact, we probably will; that's kinda the idea of 'taking back control' of our borders.
This is going to be the kind of issue which could easily get very political, and therefore disrupt agreement on trade even though such disruption is in neither side's interests.
Corrected again. It's pretty bad in that case. We'll need to get an agreement on this otherwise we will be at a severe disadvantage.
Nah, not really. This is the one thing that I'm least worried about, as long as our approach is uniform they'll have nothing to complain about. It's really up to them on how they react to it, some nations may be minded to give us reciprocity, others may choose to put the UK in its existing non-EU migration programmes. It is a decision for national governments.
OK, so you are a UK based engineering company selling equipment that requires two weeks' set-up on the customer's site. Your first job is in France, so you have to apply for a temporary secondment permit taking up to two months to go through the French bureaucracy. Your client has to make a supporting application. Your next job is Germany and they have different processes. And then you do Italy and go through their bureaucracy ...
The same applies if you employ a UK national as a support salesperson in the territory
Simply no company will continue to trade from the UK on that basis.
And yet US companies do just that in Europe. Also, business visas exist for exactly this reason, to conduct temporary business in a country. A lot of temporary visitor visas allow for short term business to be conducted as well such as attending meetings, trade shows, and probably the scenario you describe.
May made clear outside No 10 the Union was more important to her than hard BREXIT and her first visit was to see Sturgeon after all''
Music to UKIP's ears.
UKIP'S hard BREXIT position represents 30% of voters at best, they are in no position to dictate terms to the rest of the country, they are as bad as Remainers who want a second referendum
The 30% who are determined, united and certain can overcome the 70% who are neither.
Rubbish, the 30% would be crushed at a general election, that is the same total Hague and Ed Miliband got, even if it would be high for a third party which could perhaps even become the opposition party
I was making a general point about minorities being able to influence majority positions when the majority is fractured and riven with doubt, not suggesting that in this instance it would be the case that that 30% would be triumphant. It was a point about the general power of fanaticism, not a prediction.
As an aside, does anyone have any insight into why we've failed to control immigration from outside the EU? This was, after all, May's remit & supposed to be controllable -- and they can't have all been students.
Only the glib insight of 'lack of will'. They didn't get punished for it in 2015 (or at least not to the extent it prevented a win) so like austerity the tough talking but less tough acting was enough.
So May had a lack of will? Does not augur well. Cameron's pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands ultimately led to where we are today. The lack of a decent response on this was REMAIN's most vulnerable point.
I know there was some early success in cracking down on bogus university courses. And migration dipped (naturally) when the economy was stuttering back in 11/12. But seemed only a temporary decline...
Would really love to see some intelligence on this.
Rest of the world immigration has been pretty flat over the last few years - to study is down, family reunion is down and to work is slightly up. Its the lack of UK emigration and high EU immigration that has kept the number high.
Thank-you.
Looks like of the approx 380k non-EU immigrants - approx: a) 40k are asylum; b) 40k family; c) 100k highly skilled; d) 200k students.
So, difficult to really impact those numbers unless you want to screw the economy via c and d.
Surely the real question that we need to ask is, what are those students doing after they graduate?
One suspects (hopes?) paying higher than average tax-rates, if they are intelligent enough to get through their course. Or, they've gone home.
Again, data would be useful.
But every piece of data I see basically suggests that we've been building a high migrant model to generate wealth in higher ed; financial services; high tech etc.
And then blaming migration for our own inability to manage the London/regional growth disparities and the most dysfunctional housing market in the OECD.
But if we cut migration it only gets worse...
Time for politicians to actually man up and level with us.
As an aside, does anyone have any insight into why we've failed to control immigration from outside the EU? This was, after all, May's remit & supposed to be controllable -- and they can't have all been students.
Only the glib insight of 'lack of will'. They didn't get punished for it in 2015 (or at least not to the extent it prevented a win) so like austerity the tough talking but less tough acting was enough.
So May had a lack of will? Does not augur well. Cameron's pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands ultimately led to where we are today. The lack of a decent response on this was REMAIN's most vulnerable point.
I know there was some early success in cracking down on bogus university courses. And migration dipped (naturally) when the economy was stuttering back in 11/12. But seemed only a temporary decline...
Would really love to see some intelligence on this.
Rest of the world immigration has been pretty flat over the last few years - to study is down, family reunion is down and to work is slightly up. Its the lack of UK emigration and high EU immigration that has kept the number high.
Thank-you.
Looks like of the approx 380k non-EU immigrants - approx: a) 40k are asylum; b) 40k family; c) 100k highly skilled; d) 200k students.
So, difficult to really impact those numbers unless you want to screw the economy via c and d.
Surely the real question that we need to ask is, what are those students doing after they graduate?
One suspects (hopes?) paying higher than average tax-rates, if they are intelligent enough to get through their course. Or, they've gone home.
Again, data would be useful.
But every piece of data I see basically suggests that we've been building a high migrant model to generate wealth in higher ed; financial services; high tech etc.
And then blaming migration for our own inability to manage the London/regional growth disparities and the most dysfunctional housing market in the OECD.
But if we cut migration it only gets worse...
Time for politicians to actually man up and level with us.
Agreed, but you'll be waiting a long time for that last line to happen!
May made clear outside No 10 the Union was more important to her than hard BREXIT and her first visit was to see Sturgeon after all''
Music to UKIP's ears.
UKIP'S hard BREXIT position represents 30% of voters at best, they are in no position to dictate terms to the rest of the country, they are as bad as Remainers who want a second referendum
The 30% who are determined, united and certain can overcome the 70% who are neither.
Rubbish, the 30% would be crushed at a general election, that is the same total Hague and Ed Miliband got, even if it would be high for a third party which could perhaps even become the opposition party
I was making a general point about minorities being able to influence majority positions when the majority is fractured and riven with doubt, not suggesting that in this instance it would be the case that that 30% would be triumphant. It was a point about the general power of fanaticism, not a prediction.
Only to the extent there will be some migration controls
Comments
This is how I would have it:
Entry scan - name, passport number and date in a new entry with a blank exit date
Exit scan - name and passport number matched to any open entries, exit date recorded.
Open entries could be scraped to find anyone who has overstayed their visa. We could even attach work permits to passport numbers in a clever system, so that newly opened entries could have a WP field as well.
The database could be used by employers to check passport numbers to ensure work permits are not expired or fake.
Obviously in theory it's all very simple, but in the world of public sector IT it would probably turn into a £10bn white elephant.
It was England and Wales
I suppose by same logic it was not ok for Scotland to hold the UK to ransom? They had a democratic right and used it so let's at least have some consistency in the debate if nothing else.
Do try and keep up
"I see May has ditched the extra NHS funding (though health spending will remain the public and the government's top priority) as well as the points system and even left open the possibility of continued contributions to the EU today. So basically the entire Vote Leave platform other than technical BREXIT has been thrown in the trash by the PM."
Many in the Vote Leave operation were in the government but were not actually the government and had no authority to promise anything.
Basically, independence within the EU would mean Scotland being completely sidelined but at least Scotland still has a voice within the UK, though not as powerful as he wants.
Many in the Vote Leave operation were in the government but were not actually the government and had no authority to promise anything.
Absolutely. Nothing that the Leave campaign 'promised' has any meaning - other than the central issue of leaving the EU. And is what will happen. The shape of the deal and future relations was always going to be a matter for negotiation between governments and institutions not the Leave board.
Many in the Vote Leave operation were in the government but were not actually the government and had no authority to promise anything.
Indeed and now we have a PM who backed Remain she is free to throw the Vote Leave platform away as she never committed to anything in it
Perhaps 80% of what we need could be obtained without having a super computer system. A stamp in the passport giving date of entry and period allowed to stay, a further stamp for work permissions (work permits would also need to be recorded on a database). Employers as now would be required to confirm eligibility to work of job applicants.
However, as I noted before unless people can be quickly removed from the UK without going through months or years in the courts then the whole thing would be a waste of time.
This is a report in the Leicester Mercury from 19th October 2009:
"A Leicester MP is leading an investigation into the harmful affects of cocaine – with the help of singer Amy Winehouse's father.
The home affairs select committee, chaired by Leicester East MP Keith Vaz, will tomorrow discuss the attractions of drug taking, the impact of addiction on family and friends and methods of treating addiction.
Mr Vaz said: "As part of our investigation into the cocaine trade we want to explore the human cost of drug taking, particularly on users and their families."
http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/mp-leading-probe-drug-abuse/story-12057395-detail/story.html#cRUTXqHRLs4hZlH6.99
If the EU tried to take over national non-EU migration policy they may as well declare the project finished. There is no way nations will give that up to Brussels.
Perhaps something like the system we had for the Old Commonwealth. Under 26, you can come and study and work. Over 26 you need a proper work visa.
There is no reason that should not be an easy to get work visa for Schengen citizens, or even a non-job-specific, time-limited visa once an original job has been offered and accepted. E.g. if you get a job offer you get a 3-year work visa, and can move jobs without further application within that period.
Now would Ireland wish to have its travel and migration arrangements with the UK dictated by Brussels? Would it want to give up arrangements that long predate the EU in order to stand four square behind, say, Bulgaria?
Edit: Richard, you know that once any form of non-EU migration control by Brussels is on the statute book the ECJ will shift the whole lot to Brussels. I find it unlikely that nations wohld agree to it, all of them have different requirements and would be loathe to give up the flexibility.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minister-for-brexit-davis-davis-eu-european-union-germany-single-market-trade-deals-unaware-mistake-a7136121.html
Indeed, I never understood why we were not part of Schengen.
Indeed and now we have a PM who backed Remain she is free to throw the Vote Leave platform away as she never committed to anything in it
That is true - whatever happened there was going to be a political mess, particularly around managing expectations, and especially because people raised them deliberately, but as mocked as it was, IDS was right when he admitted afterwards the promises were a series of possibilities. They just weren't presented that way, but then that is nothing new - manifestos are not binding either, and they have a firmer basis than campaign promises by disparate groups not in government.
oops + Iceland - Romania - Bulgaria.
NB Romania, Bulgaria and Cyprus are obliged to join in due course.
"That is true - whatever happened there was going to be a political mess, particularly around managing expectations, and especially because people raised them deliberately, but as mocked as it was, IDS was right when he admitted afterwards the promises were a series of possibilities. They just weren't presented that way, but then that is nothing new - manifestos are not binding either, and they have a firmer basis than campaign promises by disparate groups not in government."
True but inevitably Leave voters may rightly feel conned but with hundreds of thousands of job losses on the horizon from factories being moved to the EU by the Japanese if we leave the single market completely it is in many of their best interests
All of which is good news as far as it goes but I do hope that our government takes advantage of this relatively cheerful outlook to nail down the details of Brexit with our European friends and allies quickly. I do not think it can be a good thing for longer term investment to have such uncertainty about what the trading rules are going to be. I would urge May and the 3 Brexiteers to get on with it and bring this uncertainty to an end before the outlook gets less promising.
Some time to reflect and consider our position as well as listen to the views of others was appropriate but I would suggest that waiting until February or March next year for the triggering of the Article 50 process is not conducive to the certainty that our economy needs.
Cameron's pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands ultimately led to where we are today. The lack of a decent response on this was REMAIN's most vulnerable point.
I know there was some early success in cracking down on bogus university courses. And migration dipped (naturally) when the economy was stuttering back in 11/12. But seemed only a temporary decline...
Would really love to see some intelligence on this.
Via @LordAshcroft polls
voting intentions
No cars (2 cars) in household
LABOUR 32% (22.5%)
CONSERVATIVES 17.9% (37.1%)
for @johnprescott
But I think that's down to us not actually Brexiting yet. Things will probably change once Article 50 is actually invoked.
"A heavy-metal-loving vicar has applied for an alcohol licence for his church, saying that Jesus "turned water into wine for a reason".
Father Tom Plant, who took over as vicar of St Michael's Church in Camden, north London, in January this year, is currently waiting to hear if his application will be accepted by Camden Council."
The Church of England can still be a gloriously eccentric organisation.
Full story, if you are interested, can be found here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/05/vicar-applies-for-booze-licence-for-church-claiming-jesus-turned/
I'm amazed that anyone seriously envisages otherwise. I'd have thought that this was a no-brainer of a prediction.
But, the long-term trends in favour of Scottish independence will not abate.
If we want to protect the union, we need to think along more federal lines.
For example, what UK-level institutions should base themselves in Scotland (rather than defaulting to London).
Scotland needs to be treated as a true partner in the union.
If we see a drop in EU migration post-Brexit it will most likely be replaced by Non-EU migration anyway. The priority of the EU member states individually is likely to be a decent trade deal, but the priority of the EU as an institution is likely to be a defensive approach so no budging ground on things like migration.
Portugal, France or Austria as individual countries don't care whether we let in Romanians or not, but Brussels does because it would be a huge blow to the project if we are given leeway. A big part of the European approach to negotiations is how much is controlled by member states vs the EU itself.
The detail is all at the ONS
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-april-to-june-2016
Rest of the world immigration has been pretty flat over the last few years - to study is down, family reunion is down and to work is slightly up. Its the lack of UK emigration and high EU immigration that has kept the number high.
NEWS: Counter terrorism officers are at a house in #Keighley. A man and a woman have been arrested https://t.co/9XUpCckpR5
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/05/corbyn-investigating-claims-leadership-contest-is-being-rigged?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Sounds like Corbyn is panicking a bit? Maybe not as in the bag as some think?
* with the exception of the historical Irish position, which no-one objects to.
Looks like of the approx 380k non-EU immigrants - approx:
a) 40k are asylum;
b) 40k family;
c) 100k highly skilled;
d) 200k students.
So, difficult to really impact those numbers unless you want to screw the economy via c and d.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-april-to-june-2016/family
NEW THREAD
The same applies if you employ a UK national as a support or sales person in the territory
Simply no company will continue to trade from the UK on that basis.
To which some might say, but we had much lower numbers in the 90s and somehow managed then.
Aye, but that was before globalisation kicked in, along with a much greater demand for skilled, global labour in our leading industries.
Not easy - nor, in my view desirable - to unwind.
The EU countries may have a common approach at the negotiations but as you have already stated that will, probably, entail different arrangements for Ireland. What I cannot see is how any treaty with the EU can encompass matters that are outside the competence of the EU.
This is going to be the kind of issue which could easily get very political, and therefore disrupt agreement on trade even though such disruption is in neither side's interests.
Again, data would be useful.
But every piece of data I see basically suggests that we've been building a high migrant model to generate wealth in higher ed; financial services; high tech etc.
And then blaming migration for our own inability to manage the London/regional growth disparities and the most dysfunctional housing market in the OECD.
But if we cut migration it only gets worse...
Time for politicians to actually man up and level with us.