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:

Except we just spent two pages discussing a workable solution, if we can do it why can't the EU?

We've spent thelast 2 pages pointing out how your idea doesn't work and that it's an impossible problem to solve whilst everyone is happy.

Numberplate recognition would give you a record of the cars that regularly cross the border, this could then be cross referenced against those who have applied to have this right and if a car is regularly making the crossing but isn't registered you can send a call out to the police to stop and search it.

But of cause you know this, your just trying to make a point even though your argument doesn't hold up very well.

There are so many holes in this I'm not sure where to start. Can anyone register to cross? How do you account for taxis, busses, rental cars? What's to stop people crossing in stolen cats? Or someone hiring a minivan, driving to Eire and coming home with 6 illegals?

It'd sort of work if there was either a high percentage of random stops or some sort of occupancy monitoring and passenger registration but you're essentially at a hard border again.
Honestly the only 3 options are:

1. Just keep free movement and leave it open.
2. Unify Eire/NI and put a hard border at the UK border.
3. Unify UK/NI and put a hard border at the Eure/NI border.

2 or 3 brings the paramilitaries back to life so you'd need a huge police & army presence for maybe another generation.

Maybe I'm being a bit harsh here, kudos for at least trying to figure out a solution to this. Maybe there is some workable approach, possibly using Israeli style monitoring /intelligence rather than an actual border. Maybe it'll be sufficient to leave the border open and boost the police and immigration services to deal with criminals and illegals however they get in.

Herzlos wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:

Except we just spent two pages discussing a workable solution, if we can do it why can't the EU?

We've spent thelast 2 pages pointing out how your idea doesn't work and that it's an impossible problem to solve whilst everyone is happy.

Numberplate recognition would give you a record of the cars that regularly cross the border, this could then be cross referenced against those who have applied to have this right and if a car is regularly making the crossing but isn't registered you can send a call out to the police to stop and search it.

But of cause you know this, your just trying to make a point even though your argument doesn't hold up very well.

There are so many holes in this I'm not sure where to start. Can anyone register to cross?

How do you account for taxis, busses, rental cars? What's to stop people crossing in stolen cats? Or someone hiring a minivan, driving to Eire and coming home with 6 illegals?

It'd sort of work if there was either a high percentage of random stops or some sort of occupancy monitoring and passenger registration but you're essentially at a hard border again.
Honestly the only 3 options are:

1. Just keep free movement and leave it open.
2. Unify Eire/NI and put a hard border at the UK border.
3. Unify UK/NI and put a hard border at the Eure/NI border.

2 or 3 brings the paramilitaries back to life so you'd need a huge police & army presence for maybe another generation.

Maybe I'm being a bit harsh here, kudos for at least trying to figure out a solution to this. Maybe there is some workable approach, possibly using Israeli style monitoring /intelligence rather than an actual border. Maybe it'll be sufficient to leave the border open and boost the police and immigration services to deal with criminals and illegals however they get in.

I assume you finally read the last comments of the last two pages rather than just assuming I was saying what you wanted me to say, well done.

Yes, this is exactly what I've been saying for 2 pages - you don't need a hard border if you want to keep the free movement of goods (which we do - it's the EU who want to introduce barriers) and you have effective controls on who can live and work in the country then a hard border simply isn't needed.

Anyway, in answer to your questions (most of which have already been answered but I'll cover it again anyway)

Can anyone register to cross? - no only those who wish to work in NI and live in the exclusion zone. This doesn't mean that nobody else is allowed to cross, but if you do so on a regular basis you can expect to have regular checks on you because we suspect you are working in NI illegally


How do you account for taxis, busses, rental cars?
Taxis can register on the system (as they'll be working in NI) busses are run by the council so will already be cleared, rental cars can also be registered if they are in the exclusion zone - simple.

Now, how do you stop people using these as a way to get to work? We'll - first of all I'm going to ignore rental cars because the cost to rent a car is likely to be far higher than a wage and simply wouldn't be worth the effort to try break the law and illegally work in NI.

On taxis and busses you obviously cannot track everyone. This is where greater checks on employment and bigger fines (maybe even a prison sentence to employers who hire illegal employees) comes into play. If I ran a business I wouldn't risk a massive fine or a prison sentence just to hire someone illegally - maybe some would but again I'm going to point out that if we are looking for a system that is 100% crime proof then we might as well pack the negotiations in now.

What's to stop people crossing in stolen cats? - absolutely nothing, but as I've said multiple times, please name one border in the world that is 100% secure. If we were to say that the current border is 5% secure (as it's fully open with very little rules on who isn't allowed in) and our new automated soft border is 25% secure it's still better. Hell, when we had armed soldiers manning the border people still found a way to smuggle in, if we say any deal that isn't 100% secure must be rejected then we need to cancel the whole thing because that's impossible.

Would I like a stronger border, yes I Would, but this is an acceptable compromise and that is what a negotiation is supposed to be.

Or someone hiring a minivan, driving to Eire and coming home with 6 illegals? - nothing, but what's to stop people doing that now? What we do is make it much harder for people to find a job or a house if they do so, removing the pull factors to want to move.

I love the UK, but I'm surprised by the number of people here who seem to think it's so good that people will flock here to beg on the streets rather than live in a house in the EU and hold down a job.

I wonder if we're talking at cross purposes; I'm talking about illegals using the completely open Irish border to travel 1 way into the UK.

These people won't be crossing the border regularly. These people are presumably a bit deal for brexiteers.

How do we stop them without impacting people who currently have a right to cross the border(s) without wing harassed?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There are also 200 roads in the Irish border; so who's going to be paying for all of this new infrastructure? At minimum you're talking about 400 ANPR cameras with network connections, and a few back end severs. Probably constant maintenance too (especially if the locals keep cutting them down).
I wouldn't be surprised if had well over £1m/year to run.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We're also not talking about going from 5 to 25% security, we're going from not-an-issue to maybe 1 or 2% secure; primary school kids will be able to defeat this system.

Herzlos wrote:
I wonder if we're talking at cross purposes; I'm talking about illegals using the completely open Irish border to travel 1 way into the UK.

These people won't be crossing the border regularly. These people are presumably a bit deal for brexiteers.

How do we stop them without impacting people who currently have a right to cross the border(s) without wing harassed?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There are also 200 roads in the Irish border; so who's going to be paying for all of this new infrastructure? At minimum you're talking about 400 ANPR cameras with network connections, and a few back end severs. Probably constant maintenance too (especially if the locals keep cutting them down).
I wouldn't be surprised if had well over £1m/year to run.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We're also not talking about going from 5 to 25% security, we're going from not-an-issue to maybe 1 or 2% secure; primary school kids will be able to defeat this system.

A million a year? A small fraction of our EU annual bill so we could take it out of that, but in reality the first few years would probably be paid for in fines. We could also potentially charge a fee for those who what to apply for regular travel - seriously, finding £1m out of the UK budget is a tiny cost.

This system does nothing to stop illegals who are currently illegal from being able to cross, that's not the point of it, it is to clarify who is/isnt allowed to legally cross any more - so yes we are at cross purposes.

You say that a primary school child can beat the border - the open border Yes, but show me a primary school child who knows how to forge a National Insurance number and get it onto the government's database, or forge documents to prove they live in the exception zone.

As I've said multiple times, the object isn't to stop people crossing the border, it's to stop people from having the right to live and work in the UK without applying and being granted permission first - which is what this system does. (If you read the UK government's proposal this is stated loud and clear) people could break the law and get around it - but then again the same could be said about anything.

Honestly your insistence that we need to stop people from crossing the border shows more about your lack of understanding of what people didn't like about so called 'free movement' (actually free citizenship) than anything else.

Stranger83 wrote:
.

I love the UK, but I'm surprised by the number of people here who seem to think it's so good that people will flock here to beg on the streets rather than live in a house in the EU and hold down a job.

You underestimate the volume of the informal economy. Especially in agriculture, construction and home services (cleaning, gardening, care for the elderly, etc).

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jun/04/uk-shadow-economy

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/02/fantasy-that-brexit-would-be-easy-is-costing-us-dear

To me, this article hits the nail on the head. This isn't about Leavers vs Remainers anymore, it's about fantasists vs realists.

[Theresa May] made the horrendous mistake of endorsing every false promise the Leave campaign made when she took power. She might have said she would respect the referendum result but had to warn the public that leaving the EU would be hard and that there would have to be compromises if Britain was to avoid needless suffering. Instead, she made the propaganda of Farage, Johnson and Gove her own. Our hapless diplomats were instructed to work on the assumption that there would be little cost in leaving the EU – no restrictions on access to the single market or customs checks at the border – because it was in the EU’s interests to let us have our cake and eat it.

The conversation of the last few pages is an example of this very problem.

£1million increase in budget to cover border controls for 300 miles in one of the most volatile places in the UK? Pure, naive, unrealistic fantasy.

jouso wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:
.

I love the UK, but I'm surprised by the number of people here who seem to think it's so good that people will flock here to beg on the streets rather than live in a house in the EU and hold down a job.

You underestimate the volume of the informal economy. Especially in agriculture, construction and home services (cleaning, gardening, care for the elderly, etc).

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jun/04/uk-shadow-economy

No I don't, but as I've said you make UK law such that you need a National Insurance number to legally work (already the case) then you stop giving all EU nationals national insurance numbers without first applying for one before they enter the UK (pretty easy) and fine/imprison people who employ people without a National Insurance number (which is an internal UK law and wouldn't even need to be part of the EU negotiations) .

100% fool proof, no. Will some people still try to break the law and work/employ people illegally, yes. Does it matter, no.

Again, If you are saying that the solution needs to stop 100% of illegal activity then you are doomed to failure, Nobody anywhere has ever achieved that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 r_squared wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/02/fantasy-that-brexit-would-be-easy-is-costing-us-dear

To me, this article hits the nail on the head. This isn't about Leavers vs Remainers anymore, it's about fantasists vs realists.

[Theresa May] made the horrendous mistake of endorsing every false promise the Leave campaign made when she took power. She might have said she would respect the referendum result but had to warn the public that leaving the EU would be hard and that there would have to be compromises if Britain was to avoid needless suffering. Instead, she made the propaganda of Farage, Johnson and Gove her own. Our hapless diplomats were instructed to work on the assumption that there would be little cost in leaving the EU – no restrictions on access to the single market or customs checks at the border – because it was in the EU’s interests to let us have our cake and eat it.

The conversation of the last few pages is an example of this very problem.

£1million increase in budget to cover border controls for 300 miles in one of the most volatile places in the UK? Pure, naive, unrealistic fantasy.

Have you even read the last couple of pages or the government paper on the border? We don't want border controls - that's the whole point. I know it goes against your "all brexiteers are racisist" mindset but there it is.

But then when has a remainer ever let a little thing like the facts get in the way of their argument.

Stranger83 wrote:

jouso wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:
.

I love the UK, but I'm surprised by the number of people here who seem to think it's so good that people will flock here to beg on the streets rather than live in a house in the EU and hold down a job.

You underestimate the volume of the informal economy. Especially in agriculture, construction and home services (cleaning, gardening, care for the elderly, etc).

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jun/04/uk-shadow-economy

No I don't, but as I've said you make UK law such that you need a National Insurance number to legally work (already the case) then you stop giving all EU nationals national insurance numbers without first applying for one before they enter the UK (pretty easy) and fine/imprison people who employ people without a National Insurance number (which is an internal UK law and wouldn't even need to be part of the EU negotiations) .

100% fool proof, no. Will some people still try to break the law and work/employ people illegally, yes. Does it matter, no.

Again, If you are saying that the solution needs to stop 100% of illegal activity then you are doomed to failure, Nobody anywhere has ever achieved that.

https://ni-apply.co.uk/blog/can-i-start-working-without-national-insurance-number/

So, we have this system in place to cover it already because we're in the EU. Even EU nationals must have a NI number to work legally already. However, NI numbers are not going to solve, or even address the issues of migration and employment. As has been pointed out to you, ad nauseum, people will still come here and work, but now it will be illegal, we will get no tax, and less benefit, and it's likely that overall crime will increase as a result.

Stranger83 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 r_squared wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/02/fantasy-that-brexit-would-be-easy-is-costing-us-dear

To me, this article hits the nail on the head. This isn't about Leavers vs Remainers anymore, it's about fantasists vs realists.

[Theresa May] made the horrendous mistake of endorsing every false promise the Leave campaign made when she took power. She might have said she would respect the referendum result but had to warn the public that leaving the EU would be hard and that there would have to be compromises if Britain was to avoid needless suffering. Instead, she made the propaganda of Farage, Johnson and Gove her own. Our hapless diplomats were instructed to work on the assumption that there would be little cost in leaving the EU – no restrictions on access to the single market or customs checks at the border – because it was in the EU’s interests to let us have our cake and eat it.

The conversation of the last few pages is an example of this very problem.

£1million increase in budget to cover border controls for 300 miles in one of the most volatile places in the UK? Pure, naive, unrealistic fantasy.

Have you even read the last couple of pages or the government paper on the border? We don't want border controls - that's the whole point. I know it goes against your "all brexiteers are racisist" mindset but there it is.

But then when has a remainer ever let a little thing like the facts get in the way of their argument.

Because, whether you like it or not, it's an almost certainty that there are going to be increased border controls in Northern Ireland. That is the bit about fantasists and realists I was trying to point out. Your proposals, ideas and arguments are all pure fantasy, and rooted in this idea that we can make this work really easily if only we could all just get along.

That is fantasy.

Your comment about Remainers and facts also made me chuckle.

But its nice to see the leave side reduced to weak "hivemind/gollum" memes and insults as their arguments, and reality are stripped away.

I find it interesting that the UK government and leavers have stopped talking about access to the free market, which all along they said was 100% possible and easy, where the EU said that it was linked to the 4 fundamental freedoms.

 Witzkatz wrote:


This might be going back to the problem mentioned earlier - factions blaming each other - but honestly, if the Brexit campaign had a list of goals they wanted to achieve, positive changes that come out of Brexit for the United Kingdom, wouldn't you agree it would have ALSO been their job to simultaneously analyze possible negative changes and problems directly connected to their goals and at least propose possible solutions from the get go? Because this is not a 6th grade debate club but global politics, downsides and problems can't be just downplayed until the debate is won, they will come up sooner or later.

The problem is that the Brexit campaign had no goals. It arose because of internal politics fight between the Tories most of which were (and still are secretly) pro-EU and a third which would are completely anti-EU. The PM at the time (David Cameron) thought he could end the argument in his own party for good by calling a referendum which he expected to win but in the end narrowly lost.

There was no plan in the Brexit camp however. They spent the campaign promoting a blinkered here are all the bad bits with no solutions as to how leaving would solve any of it. So we end up with pointless soundbites targeting different sections of the populace to try and persuade enough people to vote against remaining. Hence some people voted on immigration, some voted because they were just bigots and racists and didn't like anyone foreign in the UK, some voted because they though the EU generated too much red tape, some voted because we should make our own rules and so on. There was no overall plan. This came to a head on the day after the election when those on the Leave side came out and said "we've done out part, there's no plan, we expected those on the Remain side to know that" and comments that the things said by the Brexit campaign were "possible promises". Basically the Leave campaign said what they did to get a enough people to vote their way without considering any of the consequences of how it would all be implemented (leaving us in the mess we are now). The disappointing thing is that the Remain camp was so poor that they never even thought of asking what the Leaves implementation plan was (and I think that if this had been highlighted it would have persuaded enough people not to vote for Leave). Instead the remain camp tried to play the 'fear' game as well by telling everyone leaving would start WWIII in Europe and so on. There was no rational debate during the Brexit referendum campaign...

So now we have a lot of disparate groups in the Leave side that want different things:-

Some want a hard border and minimal immigration and to hell with the trade
Some want freedom of movement and trade but less red tape
etc etc

The only camp that still is united is the Remain camp because they know exactly what they want. So it's not a particular surprise that the UK negotiations are in a mess. The Tories are trying to keep on side with a lot of these disparate groups and hence there are a lot of loose open statements to try and appease everyone. They know that if for example the anti-immigration brigade element aren't happy they will move back to UKIP which would had Labour the next election.

 Steve steveson wrote:
I find it interesting that the UK government and leavers have stopped talking about access to the free market, which all along they said was 100% possible and easy, where the EU said that it was linked to the 4 fundamental freedoms.

Well, we'll always have access to the single market. It's just a case of either paying direct contributions to it or paying tariffs for it. Some Remainers were giving the impression that the EU would literally stop trading with the UK after the fact.

 r_squared wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:

jouso wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:
.

I love the UK, but I'm surprised by the number of people here who seem to think it's so good that people will flock here to beg on the streets rather than live in a house in the EU and hold down a job.

You underestimate the volume of the informal economy. Especially in agriculture, construction and home services (cleaning, gardening, care for the elderly, etc).

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jun/04/uk-shadow-economy

No I don't, but as I've said you make UK law such that you need a National Insurance number to legally work (already the case) then you stop giving all EU nationals national insurance numbers without first applying for one before they enter the UK (pretty easy) and fine/imprison people who employ people without a National Insurance number (which is an internal UK law and wouldn't even need to be part of the EU negotiations) .

100% fool proof, no. Will some people still try to break the law and work/employ people illegally, yes. Does it matter, no.

Again, If you are saying that the solution needs to stop 100% of illegal activity then you are doomed to failure, Nobody anywhere has ever achieved that.

https://ni-apply.co.uk/blog/can-i-start-working-without-national-insurance-number/

So, we have this system in place to cover it already because we're in the EU. Even EU nationals must have a NI number to work legally already. However, NI numbers are not going to solve, or even address the issues of migration and employment. As has been pointed out to you, ad nauseum, people will still come here and work, but now it will be illegal, we will get no tax, and less benefit, and it's likely that overall crime will increase as a result.

It's odd isn't it - if I'd have said so many people in the EU were prepared to come over here and break our laws I'd be considered a racist, but when you do it it's ok and I'm a fantasist for believing it won t happen.

I don't know what has happened to you in your life that makes you think people from the EU have such disregard for the rule of law - I've always found that as a general rule respect for the law of the land is pretty high amounts people from Europe, I therefore choose yo believe that if you tell them that working here would be illegal then they simply wouldn't come and instead choose to go to a country where they are allowed to work.

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?

I think you massively overestimate the cost to the "benefits system" from the few EU citizens that use it. It's a massively over exaggerated problem. Go and look at the actual figures. People come the UK because it has good job prospects and low unemployment compared to other EU countries. We also had a decent exchange rate (a lot worse now) that meant that relative to their home country even doing basic jobs such as cleaning etc they were getting much more than they would earn elsewhere. These pulls will remain to an extent for the poorest. The only difference is that once they arrive they will destroy all documents associated with who they are. Then they live on the streets or find people that are likely to turn a blind eye to having no NI number. My concern would be that illegal recruitment business fronts would spring up leaving such people vulnerable to exploitation and criminal groups. As noted before our police are already over stretched so as long as they keep under the radar then they are likely to be missed and grow.

 Whirlwind 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?

I think you massively overestimate the cost to the "benefits system" from the few EU citizens that use it. It's a massively over exaggerated problem. Go and look at the actual figures. People come the UK because it has good job prospects and low unemployment compared to other EU countries. We also had a decent exchange rate (a lot worse now) that meant that relative to their home country even doing basic jobs such as cleaning etc they were getting much more than they would earn elsewhere. These pulls will remain to an extent for the poorest. The only difference is that once they arrive they will destroy all documents associated with who they are. Then they live on the streets or find people that are likely to turn a blind eye to having no NI number. My concern would be that illegal recruitment business fronts would spring up leaving such people vulnerable to exploitation and criminal groups. As noted before our police are already over stretched so as long as they keep under the radar then they are likely to be missed and grow.

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

The EU would prefer no border and freedom of movement and trade as that is what we already have. The EU could decide to implement the same, as you could comfortably say they probably don't mind UK citizens coming to work in the EU. Then that just passes all border controls on to the UK government (which is the one paranoid about immigration figures).

Stranger83 wrote:


It's odd isn't it - if I'd have said so many people in the EU were prepared to come over here and break our laws I'd be considered a racist, but when you do it it's ok and I'm a fantasist for believing it won t happen.

I don't know what has happened to you in your life that makes you think people from the EU have such disregard for the rule of law - I've always found that as a general rule respect for the law of the land is pretty high amounts people from Europe, I therefore choose yo believe that if you tell them that working here would be illegal then they simply wouldn't come and instead choose to go to a country where they are allowed to work.

You are just trying to twist the conversation now. If someone said "all citizens of the EU are criminals" then that is bigotry (not really racism, but more from interpretation). To discuss the consequences if you implement a system that encourages exploitation of the poorest regardless of where they are coming from is not bigotry or racism. There actions are only 'illegal' because of the some rather arbitrary rules about whether you were born on this or that rock that are being suggested.. That it is highlighting that rules proposed discriminate against people and are likely to hit the poorest the worst as they are both desperate enough to try and get out of that cycle. To have concerns that this will then place much greater pressures on the UK system as a whole as they will no longer contribute tot he system and potentially need more support. What we should be asking you is why you are so keen to have a system that discriminates as to whether someone can work/live/rent simply on what rock they were born on?

 Whirlwind wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:


It's odd isn't it - if I'd have said so many people in the EU were prepared to come over here and break our laws I'd be considered a racist, but when you do it it's ok and I'm a fantasist for believing it won t happen.

I don't know what has happened to you in your life that makes you think people from the EU have such disregard for the rule of law - I've always found that as a general rule respect for the law of the land is pretty high amounts people from Europe, I therefore choose yo believe that if you tell them that working here would be illegal then they simply wouldn't come and instead choose to go to a country where they are allowed to work.

You are just trying to twist the conversation now. If someone said "all citizens of the EU are criminals" then that is bigotry (not really racism, but more from interpretation). To discuss the consequences if you implement a system that encourages exploitation of the poorest regardless of where they are coming from is not bigotry or racism. There actions are only 'illegal' because of the some rather arbitrary rules about whether you were born on this or that rock that are being suggested.. That it is highlighting that rules proposed discriminate against people and are likely to hit the poorest the worst as they are both desperate enough to try and get out of that cycle. To have concerns that this will then place much greater pressures on the UK system as a whole as they will no longer contribute tot he system and potentially need more support. What we should be asking you is why you are so keen to have a system that discriminates as to whether someone can work/live/rent simply on what rock they were born on?

I'm not twisting the conversation at all - I'm pointing out that in my opinion the vast majority of people try to live within the rule of law - r-squared seems to think that this isn't the case and that if people don't like the law they will just outright ignore it, I massively disagree with this assertion. Particularly when the EU still exists and they would be free to go legally work in France or Germany if they so choose.

 Whirlwind wrote:
People come the UK because it has good job prospects and low unemployment compared to other EU countries. We also had a decent exchange rate (a lot worse now) that meant that relative to their home country even doing basic jobs such as cleaning etc they were getting much more than they would earn elsewhere. These pulls will remain to an extent for the poorest. The only difference is that once they arrive they will destroy all documents associated with who they are. Then they live on the streets or find people that are likely to turn a blind eye to having no NI number. My concern would be that illegal recruitment business fronts would spring up leaving such people vulnerable to exploitation and criminal groups. As noted before our police are already over stretched so as long as they keep under the radar then they are likely to be missed and grow.

But you've said before that "Wrexit" is going to destroy our economy and the EU is going to go to strength after strength after we're gone. If that's true, why would the immigrants still come here then? Which is it? Are we going to sink and they'll go elsewhere or our we going to do well enough to attract illegal workers?

Oh, and the "UK...has good job prospects and low unemployment compared to other EU countries"? Why might that be? Maybe because we aren't in the Eurozone? And here I was getting a lot of gak in this thread for not wanting to be a part of that and wanting our own currency.

Stranger83 wrote:


Considering ive never put a cost on it I find it hard for you to think I've overestimated it.

I disagree with the idea that people who haven't paid into the system are allowed to take out of it, weather they take out 1p or £1bn is irrelevant.

Although I dislike quoting the Fail Online, as they tend to exaggerate things I'll use this as it would the highest they could possibly calculate, this is their quoted cost:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3467563/886million-eye-watering-sum-pay-benefits-work-EU-migrants-just-one-year.html

So that's £0.9billion per annum. Our total expenses are about £800 billion pa. That's 0.1% of our expenses. It is a negligible amount overall. It is easily within the fluctuations the country will see year on year just from economic variations. To put it into context the reduction in the value in the £ has increased our interest payments by about £16bn a year.

The point of having a social system is that society supports those to help them improve and get out of being at the bottom. That benefits society overall as they then contribute to society. If you stop all payments to anyone then that leads to poverty of the poorest and overall costs society more to manage the implications.

On your thinking, babies should not be allowed to be born in hospitals
Children shouldn't be allowed to go to schools or be treated if they have cancer
People with degenerative defects should be thrown onto the streets
there should be no money spent on wildlife preservation
and so on as none of these examples will have put any money into the system.

I believe that the idea is that their parents have paid for the service.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:


Considering ive never put a cost on it I find it hard for you to think I've overestimated it.

I disagree with the idea that people who haven't paid into the system are allowed to take out of it, weather they take out 1p or £1bn is irrelevant.

Although I dislike quoting the Fail Online, as they tend to exaggerate things I'll use this as it would the highest they could possibly calculate, this is their quoted cost:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3467563/886million-eye-watering-sum-pay-benefits-work-EU-migrants-just-one-year.html

So that's £0.9billion per annum. Our total expenses are about £800 billion pa. That's 0.1% of our expenses. It is a negligible amount overall. It is easily within the fluctuations the country will see year on year just from economic variations. To put it into context the reduction in the value in the £ has increased our interest payments by about £16bn a year.

The point of having a social system is that society supports those to help them improve and get out of being at the bottom. That benefits society overall as they then contribute to society. If you stop all payments to anyone then that leads to poverty of the poorest and overall costs society more to manage the implications.

On your thinking, babies should not be allowed to be born in hospitals
Children shouldn't be allowed to go to schools or be treated if they have cancer
People with degenerative defects should be thrown onto the streets
there should be no money spent on wildlife preservation
and so on as none of these examples will have put any money into the system.

£0.9bn, I'll accept that number. So we could easily pay for the cost of the technology on the border and hire a whole more police to uphold the new laws for the cost of what we save on the benefits, that seems ok to me.

As for people who are born here claiming without paying I to the system, it is true that the theory is their parents paid in, however personally I'd also like to stop these people claiming benefits too -sadly we haven't been given a referendum on that so there isn't much I can do about it at the moment. Your claims about children not getting hospital care will be treat with the contempt it deserves - and to think you tried to accuse me of twisting the conversation.

 Future War Cultist wrote:


But you've said before that "Wrexit" is going to destroy our economy and the EU is going to go to strength after strength after we're gone. If that's true, why would the immigrants still come here then? Which is it? Are we going to sink and they'll go elsewhere or our we going to do well enough to attract illegal workers?

Oh, and the "UK...has good job prospects and low unemployment compared to other EU countries"? Why might that be? Maybe because we aren't in the Eurozone? And here I was getting a lot of gak in this thread for not wanting to be a part of that and wanting our own currency.

I never said that Wrexit would destroy the economy. I've always been quite clear on this. I think it will drive the UK to being a mediocre country with little overall impact on the world. It may still grow but will be less than the EU, US, China, India etc. We'll gently slide backwards compared to these economys. Investment for high tech industries will slowly move to other countries as we struggle to provide high quality education and those that are will look elsewhere to find such jobs. If this does come to pass then there may be more demand as we move to a more low tech economy. The early impacts are likely to be more of high impact employees and businesses working (such as scientists) as the EU provides a lot of money into these areas and the UK has dried up its funding as the EU's funding took over. Long term it may indeed eventually result in a reduction in low earner migration as the UK becomes seen as a less well off place to be, however that message is not likely to happen overnight. The decline will happen over the next 20-50 years; what we are talking about here are the impacts/changes from the Wrexit negotiations now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stranger83 wrote:


£0.9bn, I'll accept that number. So we could easily pay for the cost of the technology on the border and hire a whole more police to uphold the new laws for the cost of what we save on the benefits, that seems ok to me.

As for people who are born here claiming without paying I to the system, it is true that the theory is their parents paid in, however personally I'd also like to stop these people claiming benefits too -sadly we haven't been given a referendum on that so there isn't much I can do about it at the moment. Your claims about children not getting hospital care will be treat with the contempt it deserves - and to think you tried to accuse me of twisting the conversation.

Not really it was your statement that people that have not paid into the system should get nothing out, that was your words. I was taking that to the logical conclusion that no benefits should be received before you've paid into the system. Effectively you are promoting a UK where we pay for everything, there is no 'free' NHS (where you would need medical insurance) - of course this being something out of a Tories wet dream...The last thing you ever want to do is drive people into poverty just for the sake of ideology. Supporting people to get them into better jobs and move them out of poverty is always more worthwhile long term even if there are up front costs.

Also to point out £0.9 bn would be nowhere near enough to manage the overall system. And you are failing to grasp that these people also pay into the system as well. £0.9bn is likely the gross figure not the net figure.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:


But you've said before that "Wrexit" is going to destroy our economy and the EU is going to go to strength after strength after we're gone. If that's true, why would the immigrants still come here then? Which is it? Are we going to sink and they'll go elsewhere or our we going to do well enough to attract illegal workers?

Oh, and the "UK...has good job prospects and low unemployment compared to other EU countries"? Why might that be? Maybe because we aren't in the Eurozone? And here I was getting a lot of gak in this thread for not wanting to be a part of that and wanting our own currency.

I never said that Wrexit would destroy the economy. I've always been quite clear on this. I think it will drive the UK to being a mediocre country with little overall impact on the world. It may still grow but will be less than the EU, US, China, India etc. We'll gently slide backwards compared to these economys. Investment for high tech industries will slowly move to other countries as we struggle to provide high quality education and those that are will look elsewhere to find such jobs. If this does come to pass then there may be more demand as we move to a more low tech economy. The early impacts are likely to be more of high impact employees and businesses working (such as scientists) as the EU provides a lot of money into these areas and the UK has dried up its funding as the EU's funding took over. Long term it may indeed eventually result in a reduction in low earner migration as the UK becomes seen as a less well off place to be, however that message is not likely to happen overnight. The decline will happen over the next 20-50 years; what we are talking about here are the impacts/changes from the Wrexit negotiations now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stranger83 wrote:


£0.9bn, I'll accept that number. So we could easily pay for the cost of the technology on the border and hire a whole more police to uphold the new laws for the cost of what we save on the benefits, that seems ok to me.

As for people who are born here claiming without paying I to the system, it is true that the theory is their parents paid in, however personally I'd also like to stop these people claiming benefits too -sadly we haven't been given a referendum on that so there isn't much I can do about it at the moment. Your claims about children not getting hospital care will be treat with the contempt it deserves - and to think you tried to accuse me of twisting the conversation.

Not really it was your statement that people that have not paid into the system should get nothing out, that was your words. I was taking that to the logical conclusion that no benefits should be received before you've paid into the system. Effectively you are promoting a UK where we pay for everything, there is no 'free' NHS (where you would need medical insurance) - of course this being something out of a Tories wet dream...The last thing you ever want to do is drive people into poverty just for the sake of ideology. Supporting people to get them into better jobs and move them out of poverty is always more worthwhile long term even if there are up front costs.

Also to point out £0.9 bn would be nowhere near enough to manage the overall system. And you are failing to grasp that these people also pay into the system as well. £0.9bn is likely the gross figure not the net figure.

Sadly I'm not going to continue to debate you, you've made it very clear that you intend to twist whatever anyone says into what you want them to say - whilst at the same time trying to claim that pulling someone up for directly saying that if you make it illegal for people from the EU to work here they will do so anyway isn't saying that you believe that people in the EU have no respect for the law.

Saying that you should pay into the system before you take out is not the same as saying kids shouldn't get health care, for the simple fact that we don't ask kids to pay into the system, the fact that you would even say this says far more about yourself than it does about leavers.

As far as making people pay before they should claim and that this is like 'an insurance ' maybe the fact it is called National INSURANCE has been lost upon you, I've bolded the key word there for you.

A: We shouldn't let people who don't pay into the system take out from the system.

B: Children do not pay into the system.

If premises A and B are both true, children should not be allowed to take out of the system.

This is your own argument taken to its logical conclusion. If you don't want this result, make an argument that doesn't have blatant holes in it.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
A: We shouldn't let people who don't pay into the system take out from the system.

B: Children do not pay into the system.

If premises A and B are both true, children should not be allowed to take out of the system.

This is your own argument taken to its logical conclusion. If you don't want this result, make an argument that doesn't have blatant holes in it.

Except this is a forum - not a legal document, the fact that whirlwind immediately jumped to stopping care for kids whilst such a thing never even entered my head as it's just outright stupid says a lot more about him than it does me.

Any indvidual (and their dependants) who pays into the system should be allowed to take out is the obvious edit. :p

Stranger83 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
A: We shouldn't let people who don't pay into the system take out from the system.

B: Children do not pay into the system.

If premises A and B are both true, children should not be allowed to take out of the system.

This is your own argument taken to its logical conclusion. If you don't want this result, make an argument that doesn't have blatant holes in it.

Except this is a forum - not a legal document, the fact that whirlwind immediately jumped to stopping care for kids whilst such a thing never even entered my head as it's just outright stupid says a lot more about him than it does me.

I disagree. It tells us that you didn't bother to think through the practical effects of your argument at all.

Stranger83 wrote:

jouso wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:
.

I love the UK, but I'm surprised by the number of people here who seem to think it's so good that people will flock here to beg on the streets rather than live in a house in the EU and hold down a job.

You underestimate the volume of the informal economy. Especially in agriculture, construction and home services (cleaning, gardening, care for the elderly, etc).

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jun/04/uk-shadow-economy

No I don't, but as I've said you make UK law such that you need a National Insurance number to legally work (already the case) then you stop giving all EU nationals national insurance numbers without first applying for one before they enter the UK (pretty easy) and fine/imprison people who employ people without a National Insurance number (which is an internal UK law and wouldn't even need to be part of the EU negotiations) .

100% fool proof, no. Will some people still try to break the law and work/employ people illegally, yes. Does it matter, no.

Again, If you are saying that the solution needs to stop 100% of illegal activity then you are doomed to failure, Nobody anywhere has ever achieved that.

It does matter if you got a mandate to control migration the migration flux.





The caption is very eloquent. "We must break free of the EU and take back control". Except when it comes to Ireland? I don't really see that flying. Not the #saferbritain people that's for sure.

http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Give-us-our-eleven-days/

simpler times eh ?

I'll probably get shot down in flames for this, but the whole Irish border situation could probably be solved in five minutes.

Ireland is an island, and that should be taken advantage off.

Free movement across the whole island for all citizens be they from the North or the Republic.

Free movement for all Irish citizens for within the UK as well. It would be the easiest thing in the world to produce a valid passport or driving licence if you were travelling from Dublin to Wales, as an example.

All goods entering or leaving the island of Ireland to be checked before they continue onward.

EU inspectors or standards to be put on anything made in the North that could go to the Republic, in case the EU is worried about dodgy food standards violating EU standards or something.

It's not perfect, but it's a very workable solution and it would continue the free movement and ally fears about Britain being a backdoor into the EU through the Republic for cut price goods.

It doesn't help though that they can't form any agreement in Northern Ireland after the last one fell apart over that heating payments scandal. Sin Fein wanted to remain and now would prefer some sort of whole irelend entity whereas DUP flat refuse to be separated from the rest of the UK, say if a hard border was implemented upon crossing the Irish Sea.

What's made everyone feel much more trusting towards each other is that May made a deal with the DUP in Westminster to secure power so obviously needs their support for an Irish border solution during Brexit or they'll pull the rug out from under her government. Marvellous. If the DUP get it mostly their way because they have leverage in Westminster, THAT will likely lead to troubles.