[Update] The UK votes to leave the EU

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Maybe best to go out and campaign on the streets if you feel that strongly, whatever your view.

Already doing that. have been for months

[Big Brian]

Originally Posted by Damien

It's wrong because of the date stamp? I don't see why that matters. They seem to use the weekend date for their publication, no idea why.

The Economist is pro-EU yes but no-one else on here is publishing neutral sources. The Economist is hardly a sensationalist magazine is it.



Why would they? As the article states all 27 European nations have to agree, they may all want to put in provisions, and not all of them have trade deficits with the UK. We are dependent on services more than a lot of them are so well and what happens if we end up with a Canada deal that doesn't include them? That would be harmful to the economy.

I wasn't aware I did only that and the Torygraph. Oops Telegraph


You can't dismiss every concern as scaremongering and every source as a 'rag'.

---------- Post added at 16:44 ---------- Previous post was at 16:42 ----------

Originally Posted by techguyone

No its good to have some opposing pov's with a basis in reality thanks Damien.

The services issue does disturb me too, we are unevenly balanced in that regard, and as our non services infrastructure isn't anything like it was pre- Common Market, it is something to consider.

Services as in banks already have branches and/or headquarters in most EU countries. Why would that change? They've all made contingency plans as no doubt have the Bank of England in case there is a Brexit.

---------- Post added at 16:47 ---------- Previous post was at 16:44 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

What do you actually mean by 'tighten up our border and immigration controls'?

We are not in the Schengen Agreement, and check the passport of everyone who enters this country - if we have intelligence, we will not let suspected terrorists in/arrest them; if we don't have any intelligence on them, how do we know they are a threat?

What would you actually have the Border Agency do, in addition to what they do now?

It's already been spelt out not just by me. We would not be obliged to let every Tom, Dick or Harry in just because they are in the EU. If we took that stand now the EU would be up in arms.

---------- Post added at 16:48 ---------- Previous post was at 16:47 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr K

Is there any point to this thread? Everyone seems set in their views and is convincing no one ....

Maybe best to go out and campaign on the streets if you feel that strongly, whatever your view.

We would not be on this thread if we didn't 'feel that strongly' about it. Don't worry, I can't walk but campaign all over the net.

---------- Post added at 16:52 ---------- Previous post was at 16:48 ----------

Originally Posted by pip08456

That I must agree with but immigration is foremost on peoples minds and it is being used as a lever by Brexit. Don't forget whichever side has to appeal to the masses if they wish to win and play on their fears.

I'm all for Brexit but not just on the issue of immigration. I'm a firm believer that it is the people of this country who should decide their own future without interference from Europe via their own elected government.

Yes- we have elected MEP's but they are a minority in the EU parliament and always will be they may be able to speak for Britain but can and do get overruled and outvoted by the other 27 countries unless they do backdoor deals with other nation states to get their backing.

This backdoor dealing may be giving away more of our sovreign rights but we will never know as it's all done behind closed doors. "Back me on this, I'll back you on that." I'd rather have Arthur Daley doing the deals thankyou. At least I knew he was a shady geezer.

Last paragraph. Of course you'll know. Vote leave and get our sovereignty back and you'll see just how much we have lost.

---------- Post added at 16:55 ---------- Previous post was at 16:52 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

I agree but that would be true even if we were out of Europe though. Schengen is a stupid idea.

Totally agree. I saw a map of it on the news earlier in green. We seem to be the only ones not in Schengen. See my problem is this. You're either IN the club or you're not. How would the Committee of your local club feel if you joined but only obeyed the rules and took part in the parts you agreed with. You'd be hauled before said Committee before you could say EU. There is no difference between that scenario and what the UK is doing in the EU.

---------- Post added at 16:58 ---------- Previous post was at 16:55 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

The could start by stopping people coming into the UK in the backs of lorries or do they have passports too?

I imagine you, like nearly all of us, don't readily let strangers into our homes. We behave in this way not because they're all crooks, we all know that statistically the reverse is massively true. We do it because we have no idea who they are and we're aware that they may pose a risk. Why would we treat illegal migrants any differently? Why would them being 'unknown' be a reason for not having any concerns about their motives and intentions? To my mind, we ought to be far more careful about those who come here illegally for the very reason that they are unknown and have already broken the law by doing so.

That still, of course, leaves those who can obtain convincing forged documents or come here using bona fide documents but with ulterior motives but surely that fact isn't a reason for not closing off other routes for them to get in.

Clearly whatever border controls are in place in the UK aren't sufficient. Now of course that has nothing directly to do with Schengen and is an issue for HMG to tackle but I reckon there'd be far fewer migrants in Calais if there'd been checks at every border crossing between Calais and their points of entry into the EU. The unwillingness of the EU to accept what's patently obvious and change a flawed policy causing serious problems is great cause for concern IMHO and adds to the reasons we should get out.

Well another 20 got in this week and that was the 2nd lot in a few days. I rest the borders case.

Originally Posted by Big Brian

It's already been spelt out not just by me. We would not be obliged to let every Tom, Dick or Harry in just because they are in the EU. If we took that stand now the EU would be up in arms.

Thank you for not answering my question - I haven't seen it 'spelt out' before, which is why I asked; all I have seen in this thread is the general statement that 'we need stronger borders', with no specifics about what that means, or why we can't do other things now.

We are not obliged to let every Tom, Dick, and Harry now - we have border controls (not to be conflated with not being able to expel people, which I think we should be able to).

[denphone]

A major Tory donor urges David Cameron to resign after EU referendum.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...-eu-referendum

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by denphone

A major Tory donor urges David Cameron to resign after EU referendum.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...-eu-referendum

If Brexit win then Cameron is dead man walking.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

If Brexit win then Cameron is dead man walking.

Well we shall see as l think currently its too close to call.

[Osem]

I'm sure he'll step down if the outcome isn't what he wants, otherwise I expect he'll want to stay on for a good while then stand down so there can be a new leadership contest before the next election.

Originally Posted by Osem

I'm sure he'll step down if the outcome isn't what he wants, otherwise I expect he'll want to stay on for a good while then stand down so there can be a new leadership contest before the next election.

Pretty much what I think most of us expect. Worse case for the Tories is if it's a close vote either way and they implode in on themselves.

Originally Posted by Hugh

Thank you for not answering my question - I haven't seen it 'spelt out' before, which is why I asked; all I have seen in this thread is the general statement that 'we need stronger borders', with no specifics about what that means, or why we can't do other things now.

We are not obliged to let every Tom, Dick, and Harry now - we have border controls (not to be conflated with not being able to expel people, which I think we should be able to).

To start with we will be able to close the EEA/EU channels at the ports so that every passport will be checked thoroughly and not fast tracked through the gates,EEA passengers are not checked as thoroughly as non EU passengers .
The main problem though is the sheer number of people arriving at our borders ,mostly from the EU making proper passport checks impossible .This report from the Public Accounts Committee is quite damning of our border controls and although not laying blame on EU membership it's fairly obvious that not having thousands of people rocking up with right of entry will make a huge difference to our ability to control who enters and who doesn't .

[Osem]

Originally Posted by martyh

To start with we will be able to close the EEA/EU channels at the ports so that every passport will be checked thoroughly and not fast tracked through the gates,EEA passengers are not checked as thoroughly as non EU passengers .
The main problem though is the sheer number of people arriving at our borders ,mostly from the EU making proper passport checks impossible .This report from the Public Accounts Committee is quite damning of our border controls and although not laying blame on EU membership it's fairly obvious that not having thousands of people rocking up with right of entry will make a huge difference to our ability to control who enters and who doesn't .

Yes, you'd have thought so wouldn't you. We desperately need to get some control over who's coming into the UK and we can't do that whilst we're tied to the EU.

I still can't understand why the powers that be didn't give every country the right to put a ceiling on migration. Quite why they feel it ought to be a fundamental right for, in theory, millions of people to be able to decide to move to another country is beyond me.

Originally Posted by martyh

To start with we will be able to close the EEA/EU channels at the ports so that every passport will be checked thoroughly and not fast tracked through the gates,EEA passengers are not checked as thoroughly as non EU passengers .
The main problem though is the sheer number of people arriving at our borders ,mostly from the EU making proper passport checks impossible .This report from the Public Accounts Committee is quite damning of our border controls and although not laying blame on EU membership it's fairly obvious that not having thousands of people rocking up with right of entry will make a huge difference to our ability to control who enters and who doesn't .

If the border controls can't cope now then how will they cope when the queues get longer with the removal of the EEA gates? As you said they struggle to deal with the amount of people coming to passport control as it is so taking longer on each passenger would make things worse.

Also aren't the EU gates there because we know these people don't need travel visas? They still check the passports, they still put them in the scanner thing if it's a modern one but they just don't have to check any visa requirements.

What would we do differently there or are we going to require additional checks/visas on people coming from Europe? If so then that could hurt tourism and we would get the same treatment on the way to Europe which would be a massive pain.

Is there even any evidence that EU citizens are the problem with the border controls?

Originally Posted by Damien

If the border controls can't cope now then how will they cope when the queues get longer with the removal of the EEA gates? As you said they struggle to deal with the amount of people coming to passport control as it is so taking longer on each passenger would make things worse.

Also aren't the EU gates there because we know these people don't need travel visas? They still check the passports, they still put them in the scanner thing if it's a modern one but they just don't have to check any visa requirements.

What would we do differently there or are we going to require additional checks/visas on people coming from Europe? If so then that could hurt tourism and we would get the same treatment on the way to Europe which would be a massive pain.

Is there even any evidence that EU citizens are the problem with the border controls?

Passengers from EEA countries are not subject to the same security checks as other passengers ,indeed it is set in the Immigration regulations 2006 that passengers from EEA countries should only be questioned when there is strong evidence that the passenger could be refused admission on the grounds of public policy,
public health or public security.In short there is an entire 31 page document stating that EEA passengers are treated differently to other passengers .By removing the EEA gates all passengers will be subject to the same checks ,might be slower but so what ,if it prevents would be terrorists entering the UK


IMMIGRATION DIRECTORATES' INSTRUCTIONS

4.2 Examination of EEA nationals
Pursuant to Schedule 2 powers transposed into the EEA Regulations (see paragraph 3) it is
appropriate for immigration officers to establish that a person seeking admission as an EEA
national is in possession of a valid national ID card or passport issued by an EEA state.
However, beyond this an EEA national should only be questioned where there is strong
reason to believe that there may be reasons to refuse admission on grounds of public policy,
public health or public security, including when the EEA national is subject to an extant
JULY 06 IDIs Ch 7 Sec 3 EEA Nationals & Family
Members
9
deportation order. Otherwise strict limits have been placed on the immigration officer's
examination of EEA nationals; as a result of judgments in the ECJ an immigration officer
may not require an EEA national to answer questions regarding the purpose and duration of
his journey or the financial means available to him (unless such information is relevant to the
right of admission of any non-EEA family members).

[tweedle]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Is there any point to this thread? Everyone seems set in their views and is convincing no one ....

Maybe best to go out and campaign on the streets if you feel that strongly, whatever your view.

Typical lefty, if you don't believe what I say you're set in your views/ways so you need "shutting up". Leftys do not understand the world today, it's alien to them. They still think it's 1970. They still think they can stop nuclear weapons even though everyone has them.

Ever thought about a job with Amway? Although look out for time wasters (people you couldn't convince) or any other ponzie scheme.

Originally Posted by martyh

Passengers from EEA countries are not subject to the same security checks as other passengers ,indeed it is set in the Immigration regulations 2006 that passengers from EEA countries should only be questioned when there is strong evidence that the passenger could be refused admission on the grounds of public policy,
public health or public security.In short there is an entire 31 page document stating that EEA passengers are treated differently to other passengers .By removing the EEA gates all passengers will be subject to the same checks ,might be slower but so what ,if it prevents would be terrorists entering the UK


IMMIGRATION DIRECTORATES' INSTRUCTIONS

4.2 Examination of EEA nationals
Pursuant to Schedule 2 powers transposed into the EEA Regulations (see paragraph 3) it is
appropriate for immigration officers to establish that a person seeking admission as an EEA
national is in possession of a valid national ID card or passport issued by an EEA state.
However, beyond this an EEA national should only be questioned where there is strong
reason to believe that there may be reasons to refuse admission on grounds of public policy,
public health or public security, including when the EEA national is subject to an extant
JULY 06 IDIs Ch 7 Sec 3 EEA Nationals & Family
Members
9
deportation order. Otherwise strict limits have been placed on the immigration officer's
examination of EEA nationals; as a result of judgments in the ECJ an immigration officer
may not require an EEA national to answer questions regarding the purpose and duration of
his journey or the financial means available to him (unless such information is relevant to the
right of admission of any non-EEA family members).

Fair enough. So it would be possible to admit European citizens without a visa still?

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by tweedle

Typical lefty, if you don't believe what I say you're set in your views/ways so you need "shutting up". Leftys do not understand the world today, it's alien to them. They still think it's 1970. They still think they can stop nuclear weapons even though everyone has them.

Ever thought about a job with Amway? Although look out for time wasters (people you couldn't convince) or any other ponzie scheme.

Evening Twaddle, so glad you could join us

Wasn't telling anyone to 'shut up'. Just pointing out that I don't think anybodies view on this thread has changed, so little point just agreeing with those you want to and ignoring those you don't, which many seem to be doing.