Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Herzlos wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:

Herzlos wrote:


Irish nationals will presumably need to prove their status in order to get this free movement? Does that count as free?

You're right of cause, I've never felt like a free man having to carry a passport when I go to a foreign country...

If you need a passport to cross the border, then you're still going to have to erect a physical barrier to stop people without one passing. You can't automate it using something like ANPR; how would you (a) identify if all of the passengers have free movement and (b) stop the cars with passengers that don't?
Even if you have an "Irish only" lane or queue at any borders, you'd still need a barrier to stop people abusing it.

However you regard it, that's still a border, and that's very much not wanted in Ireland, as well as a total pain in the rear for anyone who crosses the border on a regular basis.

Then you've got the fact that the border is about 300 miles long. Who's going to be responsible for policing the sections of border that don't have check-points on them?

The only way to not have a border is to genuinely leave it open and do all of the border checks when leaving Eire/NI, either on the EU side or the UK side, and cast a blind eye to anything that's made it across the soft/invisible border that shouldn't, since it'll never get any further.

You don't seem to understand what was offered - this doesn't surprise me as you are a remainer and by and large most remainers seem unable to see past what is 'now' and imagine what could be.

The border cross proposed was true 'free movement' (not to be confused with EU 'free movement') in that anyone would have been free to move across the border - in this circumstance there is no need for a hard border at all because what would you be checking? If everyone has the right to enter then why check at all?

What it would stop is the right to live/work/claim benefits in the UK, with only certain citizen of Ireland (likely to be limited to those who already live in Ireland but work on NI) being exempt. This can easily be done using exist rules anyway so nothing need to change.

It strikes me as odd that leavers are often said to be full of nostalgia, when everything I ever read shows that actually it's remainers who seem unable to think beyond the status que.

Now it was rejected by the EU as it was discrimitary towards the Irish, but why didn't the EU negotiate? Maybe we would have offered it to all the EU nationals within 30 miles of the border is part of the exempt clause that allows them to work in the UK? This then isn't discriminatory at all as it's open to everyone in the EU as anyone could chose to live in this area if they wanted.

Discriminating based on geographical location instead of nationality is still discriminating.

Nostalgia also isn't the same as supporting the status quo.

I don't see how Stranger83's proposal would do anything to keep illegals from crossing from EU territory into British territory, when I thought controlling immigration - legal and illegal - into the UK was one of the big aspects of Brexit? It feels like this idea is shooting yourself in the foot if you're a Brexit supporter.

 Witzkatz wrote:
I don't see how Stranger83's proposal would do anything to keep illegals from crossing from EU territory into British territory, when I thought controlling immigration - legal and illegal - into the UK was one of the big aspects of Brexit? It feels like this idea is shooting yourself in the foot if you're a Brexit supporter.

Simple really, anyone who crosses into the UK with the I mention to stay without first getting the approval of the UK government would need a massive bank account and be living on the street - as they wouldnt be able to get a job/claim benefits/rent or buy a house.

Again, the UK offered free movement, Not free citizenship.

Now I know that goes against everything you think about leavers, but 99% of the ones I know would all be happy with this, if you want to come and visit our country and spend your money feel free - but you cannot work or stay.

And of cause outside the EU courts we could deport anyone who is staying illegally without spending millions on legal costs and a 4 year wait.

What I'm essentially saying is it depends on your definition of immigration, I don't think I emigrate to Spain when I go on holiday there. To me to emigrate you would need to live in the country you move to - and we can prevent that fairly easy without needing to have a hard border.

Maybe we're talking past each other a bit. Your brother in arms DINLT was worried about crime being rampant in the UK just a few pages before, but you're *fine* with the possibility of desperate illegal foreigners in your land now because they couldn't *legally* stay?

I would be worried that they'd be inclined to live in the cracks of society and slums, making their lives with work under the counter as cheap labor at best, avoiding taxes, and shadier means of income at worst. That also seemed part of the reason for the cry for stricter immigration control in the campaigning before Brexit. But you're not worried about that at all and ate hopeful some soft electronic controls will take care of everything?

 Witzkatz wrote:
Maybe we're talking past each other a bit. Your brother in arms DINLT was worried about crime being rampant in the UK just a few pages before, but you're *fine* with the possibility of desperate illegal foreigners in your land now because they couldn't *legally* stay?

I would be worried that they'd be inclined to live in the cracks of society and slums, making their lives with work under the counter as cheap labor at best, avoiding taxes, and shadier means of income at worst. That also seemed part of the reason for the cry for stricter immigration control in the campaigning before Brexit. But you're not worried about that at all and ate hopeful some soft electronic controls will take care of everything?

Crime exists now, crime will exist after we leave the EU. If your going to come to the UK with the intention of commuting crime then do you really think that border checks will keep you out? Why don't you go ask.America how well that has worked against the Mexican drug barons?

I'd love to live in a world where your border checks would stop all criminals from getting into the country - and when(if) that day finally arrives maybe then I'd support a hard border until then I'm a realist and see that the only thing a hard border would do is inflame tensions in an area of the world that until recently was a hotbed of terror.

So yes, I'm 'happy' for the soft border - knowing it will let in some criminals and that we can then use the laws of our country to persecute them criminals without the EU courts interfering.

And, let's not forget that the current system has even fewer checks against people coming into the country - this is still a step up over now

Stranger83 wrote:

Simple really, anyone who crosses into the UK with the I mention to stay without first getting the approval of the UK government would need a massive bank account and be living on the street - as they wouldnt be able to get a job/claim benefits/rent or buy a house.

I'm not really sure you are thinking this through very well. In this circumstance you will get two groups of people in the country. You will get the richest who will move their money around as they see fit. Instead of renting they will live in 'hotels' on holiday permanently providing little contribution to society. The reality is that such people will have the legal team to get any status they want in the country and the Tories being the Tories will welcome them with open arms because they have money. The second group will be the poorest, the ones with nothing to lose. Where living in an abandoned warehouse or living on the street somewhere is preferable to their current status. You will therefore have an influx of people that will willingly chance living on the streets increasing an already large (and growing) homeless and begging problem on UK streets. If it got out of hand the government would have to do something. With any ID destroyed the UK would not be able to return them home (as they have no identifiable home). Such people would be at the mercy of criminal enterprises as they attempt to earn money simply to afford some basics like food, water etc or they themselves would resort to crime (may be to be deliberately arrested and then be given free food and accommodation).

The people that you will lose however are those that are in the middle ground. They won't come and bring skills and benefits to the UK society as they can't guarantee that their wife, husband, partner, children etc would be able to live here on any permanent basis. As such they just won't come. Those skills then benefit other countries that are much less xenophobic and with an aging population that isn't producing nearly enough children to maintain current levels of output will see the UK fade into mediocrity.

Also I think you are missing the point about why the EU is turning down the offer being provided by the UK. And that is simply it provides some benefits to some citizens of the EU and not others and they will never accept such a proposal as it is part of their constitution for all citizens to be treated equally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Witzkatz wrote:
Maybe we're talking past each other a bit. Your brother in arms DINLT was worried about crime being rampant in the UK just a few pages before, but you're *fine* with the possibility of desperate illegal foreigners in your land now because they couldn't *legally* stay?

This part of the problem with the Leave side of things. Everyone voted for different outcomes, there was never any documents telling people what leaving meant. So people picked different aspects as to what they wanted and voted with the intent this would happen. Hence you got disparate groups all voting for different priorities but without any common (useful) strategy. So I've come across business people that want less red tape, but want continued free movement and trade; those that want an ultra hard border etc etc. This is why there are disparate messages when you talk to different leavers - they all voted for slightly different reasons and ideologies! On the other hand Remainers are reasonably united in comparison simply because they all want the same thing!

 Whirlwind wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:

Simple really, anyone who crosses into the UK with the I mention to stay without first getting the approval of the UK government would need a massive bank account and be living on the street - as they wouldnt be able to get a job/claim benefits/rent or buy a house.

I'm not really sure you are thinking this through very well. In this circumstance you will get two groups of people in the country. You will get the richest who will move their money around as they see fit. Instead of renting they will live in 'hotels' on holiday permanently providing little contribution to society. The reality is that such people will have the legal team to get any status they want in the country and the Tories being the Tories will welcome them with open arms because they have money. The second group will be the poorest, the ones with nothing to lose. Where living in an abandoned warehouse or living on the street somewhere is preferable to their current status. You will therefore have an influx of people that will willingly chance living on the streets increasing an already large (and growing) homeless and begging problem on UK streets. If it got out of hand the government would have to do something. With any ID destroyed the UK would not be able to return them home (as they have no identifiable home). Such people would be at the mercy of criminal enterprises as they attempt to earn money simply to afford some basics like food, water etc or they themselves would resort to crime (may be to be deliberately arrested and then be given free food and accommodation).

The people that you will lose however are those that are in the middle ground. They won't come and bring skills and benefits to the UK society as they can't guarantee that their wife, husband, partner, children etc would be able to live here on any permanent basis. As such they just won't come. Those skills then benefit other countries that are much less xenophobic and with an aging population that isn't producing nearly enough children to maintain current levels of output will see the UK fade into mediocrity.

Also I think you are missing the point about why the EU is turning down the offer being provided by the UK. And that is simply it provides some benefits to some citizens of the EU and not others and they will never accept such a proposal as it is part of their constitution for all citizens to be treated equally.

Let's deal with this is stages.

The rich - first of all how is this different to the current situation? So all we are really doing here is keeping the status quo - something remainers love.
As for them not contributing, they'll still be spending here in this country and not taking anything out, a net boost to the economy (and as remainers know it's all about the economy)

The poor - Again, if you could enlighten me how this is different to what we currently have I'd appreciate it.
Indeed the only difference I can see here is that you remove the 'pull' of what is perceived to be a generous benefits system (it's actually the case that other EU countries are more generous, but ask most immigrants and they will say the UK is best) so if anything you'll reduce the number of homeless on the streets because what have they got to come to the UK for?

The middle - I assume we are not talking about any criminals here? We'll then, the middle can apply for the right to live in the UK if they wish to - we can then make a decision to see if they can support their family and if they can we'll give them the legal right to live and work in the UK, bringing their family with them.

As for the proposal, I've said many times that i know why the EU rejected it, I've even said that I understand that it would be against EU laws, so why not work with is to make it work? There is no law in the EU against giving rights to citizens that live in a certain area - so instead of 'an exception to Irish nationals' why not suggest 'an exception to anyone living within 30 miles of the border'?

Of cause we could always just implement a soft border on our end, we have the right to do so - then its the EU choice if it wants a hard border or not

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Discriminating based on geographical location instead of nationality is still discriminating.

Nostalgia also isn't the same as supporting the status quo.

To be fair, the discrimination against various EU members is the EUs problem. Not ours. Its not up to us to cater to the entire EU. Otherwise they should remove that clause about Spain getting the final say on a Gibraltar deal.

...and because it's the EU's problem, they're not accepting this specific proposal in the negotiations. That's their way of taking care of that problem and shouldn't really be surprising.

 Witzkatz wrote:
...and because it's the EU's problem, they're not accepting this specific proposal in the negotiations. That's their way of taking care of that problem and shouldn't really be surprising.

So what is their solution other than a hard border?

If the UK did unilaterally decide to impose the soft border we have suggested (which we are well within our rights to do) what would you like the EU to do? Impose a hard border and risk seeing a return to the troubles of the past?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
How about free movement on the Irish border but passport checks on further movement into the UK mainland? No one commutes across the Irish Sea on a daily basis so the numbers have to be lower.

It'd work alright if conditions in both Ireland was similar. Plenty of people will be unhappy either way.

And this talk about what-if unilateral decisions and blame-shifting is exactly what I feared after Brexit. As one of the most influential members of the EU, many issues could've surely been solved as a group, as a team. Now that the UK has decided to leave, all the ugly haggling, influencing, blaming and deflecting will come out again. From both sides of course, because that's how international politics work until today.

And by the way I don't think the EU would directly want to unilaterally create a hard border. But before that, I think many Brexiteers and supporters will be unhappy with that soft border on their own.

Stranger83 wrote:


The poor - Again, if you could enlighten me how this is different to what we currently have I'd appreciate it.
Indeed the only difference I can see here is that you remove the 'pull' of what is perceived to be a generous benefits system (it's actually the case that other EU countries are more generous, but ask most immigrants and they will say the UK is best) so if anything you'll reduce the number of homeless on the streets because what have they got to come to the UK for?

You're talking about making it easier for them to get here. They can get a ticket on a ferry rather than having to climb on a truck or row across the chanel. You're only talking about preventing them working legally after they get here so are forcing them to work under the counter or engage in crime.

So if you do that you'll get a huge influx of illegals living I squats and picking pockets or doing what a lot of the legals are doing but for half the money. Just like Mexicans in the southern US.

Plus the Brexit campaign seemed to revolve around keeping illegals out so I cant see many people approving.

We could move our border checks to Eire entry, but we'd be able to do nothing about anyone who was legally allowed in Eire and the EU wouldn't be happy with us interfering in an internal eu border.

 Witzkatz wrote:
And this talk about what-if unilateral decisions and blame-shifting is exactly what I feared after Brexit. As one of the most influential members of the EU, many issues could've surely been solved as a group, as a team. Now that the UK has decided to leave, all the ugly haggling, influencing, blaming and deflecting will come out again. From both sides of course, because that's how international politics work until today.

And by the way I don't think the EU would directly want to unilaterally create a hard border. But before that, I think many Brexiteers and supporters will be unhappy with that soft border on their own.

Actually the blame is coming from the EU, with the 'negotiators ' trying to push all the effort on to us and not making any suggestions of their own, how many times on the last two pages have you see the words 'it's not the EU problem and the UK needs to sort it' I'm just showing that it's both sides issue and they need to work together.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:


The poor - Again, if you could enlighten me how this is different to what we currently have I'd appreciate it.
Indeed the only difference I can see here is that you remove the 'pull' of what is perceived to be a generous benefits system (it's actually the case that other EU countries are more generous, but ask most immigrants and they will say the UK is best) so if anything you'll reduce the number of homeless on the streets because what have they got to come to the UK for?

You're talking about making it easier for them to get here. They can get a ticket on a ferry rather than having to climb on a truck or row across the chanel. You're only talking about preventing them working legally after they get here so are forcing them to work under the counter or engage in crime.

So if you do that you'll get a huge influx of illegals living I squats and picking pockets or doing what a lot of the legals are doing but for half the money. Just like Mexicans in the southern US.

Plus the Brexit campaign seemed to revolve around keeping illegals out so I cant see many people approving.

We could move our border checks to Eire entry, but we'd be able to do nothing about anyone who was legally allowed in Eire and the EU wouldn't be happy with us interfering in an internal eu border.

We are talking at EU migrants here, they have no need to jump on a ferry - they can just cross the border at will.

With regards to no EU migrants. As for crossing the ferry - how do you expect them to buy tickets? Or are they stowing away on board them too? What's the difference between stowing away aboard a ferry from NI or doing so from France?

And they already come and work under the counter, but outside the EU we can implant sterner laws around this for both the immigrant and the employer.

Again you make a broad sweep that brexit was around keeping illegals out, this wasn't the case at all - it was about restricting who can legally come here - a massive difference, but then that wouldn't fit your narrative around who leavers are would it. Indeed we already have the means to keep illegals out it's right there in the fact they are illegals. What brexit does is mean we can make it easier and not cost as much.

Stranger83 wrote:


The rich - first of all how is this different to the current situation? So all we are really doing here is keeping the status quo - something remainers love.
As for them not contributing, they'll still be spending here in this country and not taking anything out, a net boost to the economy (and as remainers know it's all about the economy).

Because they can only come here to holiday. They can't work or contribute in any meaningful way from a work perspective without getting the appropriate Visa's (and hence this is not an open border). As noted however they will generally have the legal teams to get what they want.

The poor - Again, if you could enlighten me how this is different to what we currently have I'd appreciate it.
Indeed the only difference I can see here is that you remove the 'pull' of what is perceived to be a generous benefits system (it's actually the case that other EU countries are more generous, but ask most immigrants and they will say the UK is best) so if anything you'll reduce the number of homeless on the streets because what have they got to come to the UK for?

This is where the massive difference is. As it stands if you have nothing to lose you can come to the country get a job, find somewhere to live and settle down whilst contributing to the economy. They have something to gain by doing this whether that is by picking fruit, cleaning, train to become an engineer etc. These people then become a net contributor to the UK society. They don't need to resort to crime, or live on the streets. In your scenario such people will not have these opportunities, they will be forced to live on the streets, not get a job and so on. This leads them to becoming a cost to society as the country then has to support the extra homelessness, if they resort to crime simply to get a bed then there is a cost there and so on. You can't 'deport' them because they have no ID to tell you where they originated from and you can't simply put them on a rubber dingy outside UK waters and say on you go. The US has a similar problem and every 20 years or so it effectively puts an amnesty out on those that have entered illegally because there is simply no other way to determine who they are and where they have come from. So hence there is a massive difference; currently you can raise the potential of those that arrive and contribute, in your scenario you limit them to being always being homeless, at risk of exploitation and forcing them to crime as their only option.

The middle - I assume we are not talking about any criminals here? We'll then, the middle can apply for the right to live in the UK if they wish to - we can then make a decision to see if they can support their family and if they can we'll give them the legal right to live and work in the UK, bringing their family with them.

I suppose it's telling that you think middle means criminals? So why would these people entertain such a backwards ideology? One person gets a job, well now can I support my partner, what happens if she isn't allowed to work? What about my children are they sent home when they get to 16? What happens if I am ill, do my family get sent home because I can't support them (thanks for the work but your ill now so "go away"). These are all questions people will ask themselves before they move. It all introduces uncertainty (and that's before they consider am I going to be subjected to racial abuse when I arrive). Now compare this to moving to Germany. No questions I can take my family, work where I want to in a job I enjoy with no restrictions. I can take my family and they can live, work and settle there. If I fall ill I'm not at risk at being thrown out of the country. That is a lot more surety and stability for the family which will favour that move over one to the UK.

As for the proposal, I've said many times that i know why the EU rejected it, I've even said that I understand that it would be against EU laws, so why not work with is to make it work? There is no law in the EU against giving rights to citizens that live in a certain area - so instead of 'an exception to Irish nationals' why not suggest 'an exception to anyone living within 30 miles of the border'?

I think your geography needs to be refined. Ireland is closer to 300 miles across not 30! And what do you mean by living in a certain area? Is that a minute, a day, a month, a year, 20 years? How would you determine this? There are no official guaranteed documents that prove as to which part of a country you are living in? Are you asking every person that might rent a house to someone to be given access to peoples personal details so they can check? What happens if someone fled a home because of violent abuse by a partner - you could be making public information available that tells that person where there friends/family etc may be? Or are you suggesting that the government should keep a database of such information on all citizens significantly compromising our rights to privacy?





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
How about free movement on the Irish border but passport checks on further movement into the UK mainland? No one commutes across the Irish Sea on a daily basis so the numbers have to be lower.

It'd work alright if conditions in both Ireland was similar. Plenty of people will be unhappy either way.

As pointed out DUP are very against this option...How likely do you think the Tories will even consider it. And the reason DUP are opposed to it is because it will quickly shift opinion for NI to becoming part of Ireland as the people in NI would have the worst of both worlds; immigration checks both at the UK/NI border and the Ireland/EU border.

Of course there is the issue that the UK is then going down the line of the discriminating against it's own people simply where they live. Why shouldn't there also be checks on every County boundary as well?

 Witzkatz wrote:
Maybe we're talking past each other a bit. Your brother in arms DINLT was worried about crime being rampant in the UK just a few pages before, but you're *fine* with the possibility of desperate illegal foreigners in your land now because they couldn't *legally* stay?

I would be worried that they'd be inclined to live in the cracks of society and slums, making their lives with work under the counter as cheap labor at best, avoiding taxes, and shadier means of income at worst. That also seemed part of the reason for the cry for stricter immigration control in the campaigning before Brexit. But you're not worried about that at all and ate hopeful some soft electronic controls will take care of everything?

Crime is rampant in the UK. I seem to be the only person on this thread who believes in empirical evidence.

I provided evidence from the local level of criminality blighting the nation, and people dismissed it as anecdotal.

I provided official government figures that showed a clear RISE in crime levels, and again, the naysayers dismissed it.

At all levels, the system is buckling and creaking under the strain:

1. Catching the criminals is a major problem for our over stretched police, so it's open season for criminal gangs.

2. Convicting them is a major problem, as our court system is falling apart at the seams.

3. Imprisoning them is a waste of time, as our prisons are more like holiday camps, with prisoners running the show, and prison guards leaving the profession by the bushel!

4. Releasing them is a problem, because they just re-offend, because we don't have the support system to turn them away from a life of crime when they're outside.

5. Researching them is a problem. University budgets are going down, so criminologists are struggling to gain insights into the criminal mind, thus restricting our ability to nip crime in the bud before it is committed.

At every level, we are under siege from top to bottom, but some people still want to bury their heads in the sand.

I just don't get it.

We are talking at EU migrants here, they have no need to jump on a ferry - they can just cross the border at will.

With regards to no EU migrants. As for crossing the ferry - how do you expect them to buy tickets? Or are they stowing away on board them too? What's the difference between stowing away aboard a ferry from NI or doing so from France?

And they already come and work under the counter, but outside the EU we can implant sterner laws around this for both the immigrant and the employer.

Again you make a broad sweep that brexit was around keeping illegals out, this wasn't the case at all - it was about restricting who can legally come here - a massive difference, but then that wouldn't fit your narrative around who leavers are would it. Indeed we already have the means to keep illegals out it's right there in the fact they are illegals. What brexit does is mean we can make it easier and not cost as much.

EU nationals can currently just hop on a direct ferry because of freedom of movement. If we're getting rid of that and they don't get a VISA they are just as illegal as anywhere else in the world but with the advantage of free movement into Ireland. From Eire they can then move freely unto NI and then into the UK. Why risk a channel crossing when you can safely go the long way?

The idea that these people have no money is ignorant too. Most of the African/Middle Eastern migrants paid a fortune to be smuggled in.

So again, we don't want foreigners in but we'll just leave the side door open? Mental.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:
Maybe we're talking past each other a bit. Your brother in arms DINLT was worried about crime being rampant in the UK just a few pages before, but you're *fine* with the possibility of desperate illegal foreigners in your land now because they couldn't *legally* stay?

I would be worried that they'd be inclined to live in the cracks of society and slums, making their lives with work under the counter as cheap labor at best, avoiding taxes, and shadier means of income at worst. That also seemed part of the reason for the cry for stricter immigration control in the campaigning before Brexit. But you're not worried about that at all and ate hopeful some soft electronic controls will take care of everything?

Crime is rampant in the UK. I seem to be the only person on this thread who believes in empirical evidence.

I provided evidence from the local level of criminality blighting the nation, and people dismissed it as anecdotal.

I provided official government figures that showed a clear RISE in crime levels, and again, the naysayers dismissed it.

At all levels, the system is buckling and creaking under the strain:

1. Catching the criminals is a major problem for our over stretched police, so it's open season for criminal gangs.

2. Convicting them is a major problem, as our court system is falling apart at the seams.

3. Imprisoning them is a waste of time, as our prisons are more like holiday camps, with prisoners running the show, and prison guards leaving the profession by the bushel!

4. Releasing them is a problem, because they just re-offend, because we don't have the support system to turn them away from a life of crime when they're outside.

5. Researching them is a problem. University budgets are going down, so criminologists are struggling to gain insights into the criminal mind, thus restricting our ability to nip crime in the bud before it is committed.

At every level, we are under siege from top to bottom, but some people still want to bury their heads in the sand.

I just don't get it.

Indeed; Mays devastation of all of these budgets have completely destroyed morale capacity and ability to deal with these problems. What's Tory policy got to do with the EU?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:
Maybe we're talking past each other a bit. Your brother in arms DINLT was worried about crime being rampant in the UK just a few pages before, but you're *fine* with the possibility of desperate illegal foreigners in your land now because they couldn't *legally* stay?

I would be worried that they'd be inclined to live in the cracks of society and slums, making their lives with work under the counter as cheap labor at best, avoiding taxes, and shadier means of income at worst. That also seemed part of the reason for the cry for stricter immigration control in the campaigning before Brexit. But you're not worried about that at all and ate hopeful some soft electronic controls will take care of everything?

Crime is rampant in the UK. I seem to be the only person on this thread who believes in empirical evidence.

I provided evidence from the local level of criminality blighting the nation, and people dismissed it as anecdotal.

I provided official government figures that showed a clear RISE in crime levels, and again, the naysayers dismissed it.

At all levels, the system is buckling and creaking under the strain:

1. Catching the criminals is a major problem for our over stretched police, so it's open season for criminal gangs.

2. Convicting them is a major problem, as our court system is falling apart at the seams.

3. Imprisoning them is a waste of time, as our prisons are more like holiday camps, with prisoners running the show, and prison guards leaving the profession by the bushel!

4. Releasing them is a problem, because they just re-offend, because we don't have the support system to turn them away from a life of crime when they're outside.

5. Researching them is a problem. University budgets are going down, so criminologists are struggling to gain insights into the criminal mind, thus restricting our ability to nip crime in the bud before it is committed.

At every level, we are under siege from top to bottom, but some people still want to bury their heads in the sand.

I just don't get it.

You don't get it because you're misremembering what actually happened. No one shot down the official government figures. We shot down your newspaper examples because they were anecdotal. Further, considering your opposition to "eggheads" and that little deal with "exports never being stronger" it's frankly laughable that you're claiming to be interested in empirical evidence. You clearly aren't.

The combination of "more control over the immigration of people looking for honest work, paying taxes and contributing to society" and "let's have an uncontrolled border with the EU and no more direct input into their refugee / immigration situation anymore" is honestly baffling me a bit here.

Were so many Europeans stealing dem jerbs? Again, the British science and research sector was vastly against Brexit because they need the international exchange and cooperation (and EU research funDing programs), just as an example.

You're not alone, I can't make any sense of it either.

All I can think is that it's some post factual rationalisation, rather than admitting it's not a good ideam

 Whirlwind wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:


The rich - first of all how is this different to the current situation? So all we are really doing here is keeping the status quo - something remainers love.
As for them not contributing, they'll still be spending here in this country and not taking anything out, a net boost to the economy (and as remainers know it's all about the economy).

Because they can only come here to holiday. They can't work or contribute in any meaningful way from a work perspective without getting the appropriate Visa's (and hence this is not an open border). As noted however they will generally have the legal teams to get what they want.

The poor - Again, if you could enlighten me how this is different to what we currently have I'd appreciate it.
Indeed the only difference I can see here is that you remove the 'pull' of what is perceived to be a generous benefits system (it's actually the case that other EU countries are more generous, but ask most immigrants and they will say the UK is best) so if anything you'll reduce the number of homeless on the streets because what have they got to come to the UK for?

This is where the massive difference is. As it stands if you have nothing to lose you can come to the country get a job, find somewhere to live and settle down whilst contributing to the economy. They have something to gain by doing this whether that is by picking fruit, cleaning, train to become an engineer etc. These people then become a net contributor to the UK society. They don't need to resort to crime, or live on the streets. In your scenario such people will not have these opportunities, they will be forced to live on the streets, not get a job and so on. This leads them to becoming a cost to society as the country then has to support the extra homelessness, if they resort to crime simply to get a bed then there is a cost there and so on. You can't 'deport' them because they have no ID to tell you where they originated from and you can't simply put them on a rubber dingy outside UK waters and say on you go. The US has a similar problem and every 20 years or so it effectively puts an amnesty out on those that have entered illegally because there is simply no other way to determine who they are and where they have come from. So hence there is a massive difference; currently you can raise the potential of those that arrive and contribute, in your scenario you limit them to being always being homeless, at risk of exploitation and forcing them to crime as their only option.

The middle - I assume we are not talking about any criminals here? We'll then, the middle can apply for the right to live in the UK if they wish to - we can then make a decision to see if they can support their family and if they can we'll give them the legal right to live and work in the UK, bringing their family with them.

I suppose it's telling that you think middle means criminals? So why would these people entertain such a backwards ideology? One person gets a job, well now can I support my partner, what happens if she isn't allowed to work? What about my children are they sent home when they get to 16? What happens if I am ill, do my family get sent home because I can't support them (thanks for the work but your ill now so "go away"). These are all questions people will ask themselves before they move. It all introduces uncertainty (and that's before they consider am I going to be subjected to racial abuse when I arrive). Now compare this to moving to Germany. No questions I can take my family, work where I want to in a job I enjoy with no restrictions. I can take my family and they can live, work and settle there. If I fall ill I'm not at risk at being thrown out of the country. That is a lot more surety and stability for the family which will favour that move over one to the UK.

As for the proposal, I've said many times that i know why the EU rejected it, I've even said that I understand that it would be against EU laws, so why not work with is to make it work? There is no law in the EU against giving rights to citizens that live in a certain area - so instead of 'an exception to Irish nationals' why not suggest 'an exception to anyone living within 30 miles of the border'?

I think your geography needs to be refined. Ireland is closer to 300 miles across not 30! And what do you mean by living in a certain area? Is that a minute, a day, a month, a year, 20 years? How would you determine this? There are no official guaranteed documents that prove as to which part of a country you are living in? Are you asking every person that might rent a house to someone to be given access to peoples personal details so they can check? What happens if someone fled a home because of violent abuse by a partner - you could be making public information available that tells that person where there friends/family etc may be? Or are you suggesting that the government should keep a database of such information on all citizens significantly compromising our rights to privacy?





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
How about free movement on the Irish border but passport checks on further movement into the UK mainland? No one commutes across the Irish Sea on a daily basis so the numbers have to be lower.

It'd work alright if conditions in both Ireland was similar. Plenty of people will be unhappy either way.

As pointed out DUP are very against this option...How likely do you think the Tories will even consider it. And the reason DUP are opposed to it is because it will quickly shift opinion for NI to becoming part of Ireland as the people in NI would have the worst of both worlds; immigration checks both at the UK/NI border and the Ireland/EU border.

Of course there is the issue that the UK is then going down the line of the discriminating against it's own people simply where they live. Why shouldn't there also be checks on every County boundary as well?

We'll skip the rich as your argument seems to be that though they make a net contribution to the EU without apply for citizenship they cannot work, as we both agree they would get this citizenship it's a pointless argument.

For the poor you seem to believe they will still come to the UK despite not being able to work here - why do you think they would do so when the EU is right next door where they can work and not need to live on the street

For the middle, I mentioned not criminal as I know how much remainers like to take what you say in one post and use it against you in entirely another -i wanted to distinguish that this comment was not in reply to my posts showing that cri.inals come to the UK now, and there is nothing g to show it will increase after brexit

As for your comments - they are all valid points and can be decided by the UK government in due course - I don't see what bearing it has on if the border is soft or hard?

I know that Ireland is bigger then 30 miles, stop trying to make me out as an idiot - I was proposing an alternative solution to 'Irish natiknalsnonly' based on what seems a reasonable distance a person would travel each day for work - of cause the exact distance covered would be open to negotiation (see there is that important word again)

So if an eu citizen used his freedom of movement to rent a place 10 miles from the ni border in Ireland, he'd be allowed to work in Northern Ireland?

Any plan like that will have so many paragraphs and inclusions and exclusions that it'll make the EU bureaucracy look tame, I think.

Something just occurred to me. Shouldn't the U.K. be entitled to a share of the EU's assets, since we helped pay for them? All those buildings they operate out of, like the two parliment buildings in Brussels and Strasbourg (because one's just not good enough)? Shouldn't we be entitled to at least 1/28th of their value?

If the EU would get a share of all the things funded and built in the UK in the same way, I guess?

That's a big rabbit hole to go down...

 Witzkatz wrote:
So if an eu citizen used his freedom of movement to rent a place 10 miles from the ni border in Ireland, he'd be allowed to work in Northern Ireland?

Any plan like that will have so many paragraphs and inclusions and exclusions that it'll make the EU bureaucracy look tame, I think.

Yes, if that is what it takes to avoid the troubles. A 30 mile zone isn't that many people, certainly less than the 60 million EU citizens currently with the right to move here - it's a compromise, which is what negotiations are supposed to be about. It's not a case of one side getting everything they want.

And with regards to how it works -simple, if you want to live in the 30 mile zone and work in the UK you would be required to submit proof that you live in the zone - this isn't the 41st millennium and the UK is not the Imperium, there is no need for a mass database of who lives where.

I recently applied for a local council grant, I was required as part of that to prove I lived in the area, if I couldn't prove it I couldn't apply, this would work the same.

 Witzkatz wrote:
If the EU would get a share of all the things funded and built in the UK in the same way, I guess?

That's a big rabbit hole to go down...

that should be part of the negotiations, work out how much the EU has spent in the UK and work out how much the UK has spent on the EU.

The problem is that money is known to disappear with no trail and then reappear somewhere else. So I agree that it's better to be left alone.

 Witzkatz wrote:
If the EU would get a share of all the things funded and built in the UK in the same way, I guess?

That's a big rabbit hole to go down...

Well it does work both ways. If they want to gouge us we should gouge back. We all know the Brexit bill is mostly a mixture of spite and panic at the looming black hole in their finances. It's got no legal basis within the EU's own treaties. I'd say we pay our commitments up to 2020 like we agreed to and that's it.

While it still goes against the equality of citizens inside the EU, if it is really showing that this would be the only way to make that NI/I border work - I'm not completely opposed to it on principle alone. However, the actual details will be very very ugly to work out, something as simple as a fixed distance from the border will satisfy very few people, I think. These would be negotiations taking years and still leaving people behind I think.

What about someone whose house is on the 30 mile line? If they sleep in the front room they are ok, but not in the back? Or perhaps it was runs through their garden? Can they sleep in their shed to get a job? I'm being slightly flippant, but there are already these kind of arguments and issues with school places. With a boarder it would be just insane. But it is about the same level as the UK governments ideas, which is why the EU are not taking it seriously.