Proposal to retain visa free travel to/from UK/EU

[Royal]

Good news in my opinion.

UK border controlImage copyrightREUTERS
The government plans to keep visa-free travel to the UK for EU visitors after Brexit, the BBC understands.
But if visitors from EU countries wanted to work, study or settle in the UK they would have to apply for permission under the proposals.
EU citizens are currently free to live and work in the UK without a permit.
The Home Office says managing migration is about access to work and benefits as much as the ability to control entry at a physical border.
Brexit: What is at stake in EU-UK talks?
But ministers are likely to face questions about whether there will be a back door into Britain for EU citizens and how the Home Office would stop visitors staying longer and getting jobs without a visa.
The Migration Watch pressure group said it was a "sensible, proportionate" proposal but the government would need to spend more money on immigration enforcement to deal with overstayers.
Plans for the UK's immigration system are due to be outlined in the autumn.
But, according to The Times, the new system for EU visitors will be phased in after Britain officially leaves the EU in March 2019, with those coming to work in the UK initially having to register with the Home Office without work restrictions.
Former UKIP leader Nigel Farage has accused the government of caving in to EU demands.
But Brexit-backing Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen said: "I don't think anybody ever intended we were just going to pull the shutters down and become a Little England.
"The same restrictions will apply to UK citizens who wish to visit the Continent.
"I mean, did you really think we were going to have a visa system just to go for a weekend to Paris?"
The government says it wants to progress to negotiations with the EU about the future operation of its border controls as quickly as possible.
On Wednesday, the government said there should be no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after Brexit.
A paper detailing its proposals stressed there should be no physical infrastructure - such as customs posts - at the border, which has almost 300 crossing points.
Critics said the proposals lacked credible detail, with Labour deriding the plans for the border as a "fantasy frontier".

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40957301

[josef k]

I looks to be unravelling somewhat, doesn't it. The people voted to stop immigration (yes they did), and now the proposal is for EU citizens to come in whenever and how often they want without a visa. The people voted to strengthen the border between the UK and the rest of the world, and now the proposal is for no border at all between N Ireland and the EU resulting in anyone coming into the UK from Ireland with no oversight at all.

You couldn't make it up, and it shows just what a dogs breakfast Brexit is. I retain my belief that, if the electorate had been given all the facts, the referendum result would be to remain.

[Varky]

I looks to be unravelling somewhat, doesn't it. The people voted to stop immigration (yes they did), and now the proposal is for EU citizens to come in whenever and how often they want without a visa. The people voted to strengthen the border between the UK and the rest of the world, and now the proposal is for no border at all between N Ireland and the EU resulting in anyone coming into the UK from Ireland with no oversight at all.

You couldn't make it up, and it shows just what a dogs breakfast Brexit is. I retain my belief that, if the electorate had been given all the facts, the referendum result would be to remain.

I didn't reach this conclusion after reading the report.

[Devil]

It is still all pure speculation. No agreement has been reached nor is likely to (if ever). No conclusion can be reached from this report.

[Royal]

The people voted to stop immigration (yes they did)

How arrogant! People didn't vote for a ‘Hard Brexit’ or a ‘Soft Brexit’. They didn't vote to stay or leave the Single Market, the Customs Union or the ECJ. People did not vote to stop immigration either (NO THEY DIDNT).

They voted for Brexit, and Brexit means Brexit. A British exit from the clutches of the EU political system and to take back control and sovereignty.

Unless you can second guess the thought process of 17,000,000 people, you simply cannot say that they voted to stop immigration. I certainly didn't.

…and now the proposal is for EU citizens to come in whenever and how often they want without a visa.

I actually don't see much problem with this proposal, and view it as a novel idea. One of the original problems was not with immigration per se, but uncontrolled immigration where our benefit system is open to all and sundry because the EU tells us that if we have benefits for UK people they must be applicable to all EU nationals resident in the UK. The same applies to the NHS, schools and other facilities. Of course if we allow free movement without visas, it doesn't follow that we have to pay benefits or to allow people to work without permission, or free healthcare, or free schooling etc etc…

The people voted to strengthen the border between the UK and the rest of the world…

Here you go again, confidently stating what 17,000,000 people had in their minds when voting.

and now the proposal is for no border at all between N Ireland and the EU resulting in anyone coming into the UK from Ireland with no oversight at all.

The first part of your assertion is correct, but the second part does not necessarily follow, I remember, before the Good Friday Agreemnt that for ALL journeys by sea and air between NI and GB everyone was stopped and their documents searched. Maybe, just maybe, we'll go back to that system. There is no reason why the GB border with NI has to be open like the NI border with Eire. There are good reasons for no border controls between NI and Eire and I'm sure that Eire will support the proposal.

You couldn't make it up, and it shows just what a dogs breakfast Brexit is. I retain my belief that, if the electorate had been given all the facts, the referendum result would be to remain.

Typical EU thinking. Either overturn democracy, or keep on voting until the ‘right’ result is achieved.

[Royal]

It is still all pure speculation. No agreement has been reached nor is likely to (if ever). No conclusion can be reached from this report.

That's why it's called a proposal...

[josef k]

The people voted to stop immigration (yes they did)

How arrogant! People didn't vote for a ‘Hard Brexit’ or a ‘Soft Brexit’. They didn't vote to stay or leave the Single Market, the Customs Union or the ECJ. People did not vote to stop immigration either (NO THEY DIDNT).

They voted for Brexit, and Brexit means Brexit. A British exit from the clutches of the EU political system and to take back control and sovereignty.

Unless you can second guess the thought process of 17,000,000 people, you simply cannot say that they voted to stop immigration. I certainly didn't.

Sorry Royal but I don't think arrogance comes into it. Neither does hard or soft Brexits. Yes, I agree people voted for Brexit, and to take back control. But, for the majority they saw control as being control over borders and immigration. I had many conversations with Brits visiting Paphos, and all the focus was immigration, and stopping eastern Europeans coming to the UK. Nobody spoke about customs unions, single markets, free trade areas, movement of capital, free sky agreements, financial centres etc etc. It was all about immigration, immigration, immigration.

[josef k]

You couldn't make it up, and it shows just what a dogs breakfast Brexit is. I retain my belief that, if the electorate had been given all the facts, the referendum result would be to remain.

Typical EU thinking. Either overturn democracy, or keep on voting until the ‘right’ result is achieved.

Are you really suggesting that democracy means requiring the electorate to make referendum decisions based on a complete lack of information? Surely that isn't democracy at all. It smacks more of authoritarian regimes where knowledge is routinely withheld.

On your second point, I have not suggested keeping on voting. I was expressing my view regarding the outcome of the original referendum were the electorate to be better informed at the time.

On a final point, can you point me to any statement of EU thinking that supports the overturning of democracy. I can't seem to find one.

[outasite]

I don't suppose it's possible that a few of the 17 million voted to leave because of the lies that have been fed to the sheep....sorry the voters....over the decades since the UK voted to join a Free Trade Union.
Personally I couldn't care a toot if someone migrates into the UK so long as that person and his family are not a drain on the benefits system that the UK enjoys. I do not mean BTW school places for children for example. The immigrant must work and pay for the roof over his head.
Also am I being extremely silly in the words of Monty Python by wondering why the UK and the EU cannot agree to the original terms of entry back in the 70s. You know, Free Trade and Free movement to work in other countries. Not claim benefits. Work. Don't see the problem if that was to happen.

[Royal]

Sorry Royal but I don't think arrogance comes into it. Neither does hard or soft Brexits. Yes, I agree people voted for Brexit, and to take back control. But, for the majority they saw control as being control over borders and immigration. I had many conversations with Brits visiting Paphos, and all the focus was immigration, and stopping eastern Europeans coming to the UK. Nobody spoke about customs unions, single markets, free trade areas, movement of capital, free sky agreements, financial centres etc etc. It was all about immigration, immigration, immigration.

Well, we have clearly spoken to totally different groups of people then. Of course there were some people (and didn’t the BBC relish in showing them in the run up to the Referendum as though they were typical Brexiteers) who said things like “time to stop immigrants coming here and taking our jobs”. That stock comment was from the very poorly educated who were usually unemployed, on benefits and looking for a scapegoat to blame for their own shortcomings. They were a minuscule minority and did not represent (in my experience) the majority view of Brexiteers. Immigration was never the main problem. Uncontrolled immigration and the consequent abuse of the benefits system and an overload in the requirements of providing suitable housing, access to the NHS and schools was always the underlying problem, which our government were unable to address as the EU/ECJ would class any form of benefits/healthcare/education discrimination as illegal. Our Parliament was not sovereign. For me and most Brexiteers I have come across (both personally and online) - this lack of sovereignty was the main issue surrounding Brexit.

The latest proposals - on the face of it - looks like free movement of people. However, as I previously stated, that was never the real problem. Once outside the EU and the judgements of the ECJ, our sovereign Parliament can ensure that those we need to work in the UK (doctors, nurses, skilled workers, seasonal unskilled workers etc) will be allowed to do so by issuing work visas. Those who do not hold work visas and cannot support themselves can be turned down for benefits and ultimately, I am sure, returned to their own country as undesirables, along with those who perpetrate crime in the UK and are jailed for it.

[Royal]

Are you really suggesting that democracy means requiring the electorate to make referendum decisions based on a complete lack of information? Surely that isn't democracy at all. It smacks more of authoritarian regimes where knowledge is routinely withheld.

On your second point, I have not suggested keeping on voting. I was expressing my view regarding the outcome of the original referendum were the electorate to be better informed at the time.

Democracy meant the UK electorate deciding in 2015 who they wanted to represent them in Parliament.

Democracy meant that the UK Parliament, representing the views of the electorate, voted overwhelmingly to hold a Referendum on a major constitutional issue in order to discover what the country wanted Parliament to do regarding continued membership of the EU.

Democracy means respecting the wishes of the electorate.

I can just imagine the views of Remainers if they had won the Referendum on 23 Jun 16 and the Brexiteers started arguing that there was a complete lack of information, lies had been told, the view of the country had changed, etc etc etc…..

[June]

Excellent posts 1-2-3 Royal.

[josef k]

Well Royal, one thing I think we agree on is that we move in different circles. You might be interested to read the centre pages of today's Cyprus Mail, in which the good burgers of Chatham in Kent give their views. It's all about immigration.

I don't disagree with your description of democracy as shown above. I just don't believe you can have true democracy without having a fully informed electorate. Was that too much to ask on such an important subject as our continued membership of the EU?

[ApusApus]

And what constitutes a fully informed electorate, there was information & dis-information on both sides to sieve through? How does the average voter decide then?


Shane

[Royal]

Well Royal, one thing I think we agree on is that we move in different circles. You might be interested to read the centre pages of today's Cyprus Mail, in which the good burgers of Chatham in Kent give their views. It's all about immigration.

josef k,

I have tried online, but failed to find the article to which you have referred. Maybe you could post a link?

Sometimes, when read in context, the meaning is quite different from what may seem to be inferred when a single comment is isolated and stated. For example, whilst trying to find the article regarding the feelings of the good people of Chatham, I found a current Reuters piece on the feelings on Chatham residents, which I reproduce below. It's possible that this Reuters piece was the basis for the Cyprus Mail piece which you have referred to.

Please read it. Your point, taken in isolation I have highlighted in bold blue. Taken as a stand alone comment, it does seem to bear out what you said. However, When looked at in context, it really does seem to bear out what I have been arguing (see red bold text).

[Chatham] residents say Kent lies in the front line of the immigration debate, making little distinction between EU migrants and people from outside the bloc seeking asylum.
Despite a lower proportion of residents born outside Britain than the national average - at 10 percent of the Medway population compared with 14.5 percent across England - voters say immigration is the main issue that May must address.
"I'm not against immigrants but it's just overflowing the country," said Bryan Burrows, 85, who says that after paying taxes for more than half a century, he resents migrants having easy access to the publicly-funded healthcare service.

May insists the free movement of EU workers to Britain will end in 2019 and a British-controlled border policy will come into effect. But so far she has offered little detail of the new regime and businesses are lobbying hard for as few restrictions as possible to ensure they can find the workers they need.

For many residents the bottom line is simple: anything other than a radical tightening of Britain's borders would be a betrayal.
"This used to be a lovely town, Chatham. Now all you hear is foreigners," said Peter Murdoch. "They're coming over getting all the benefits, houses, the lot. Struggle, that's all we do. It's not fair."
"That's what's turned us: immigrants and what they get when they come over here," he said. "Of course it should stop. Blow the tunnel up as well."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brit ... SKCN1AU164

[josef k]

Yes, this is the same article. I don't want to seem like a dog with a bone, but I think the red passages support my analysis.

[Royal]

Yes, this is the same article. I don't want to seem like a dog with a bone, but I think the red passages support my analysis.

..and I believe it supports my analysis, in that it's not immigration per se which is the problem. It's the fact that at present, there is no control over such immigrants access to benefits, housing, schools, NHS etc which is the point that the interviewees are making.

The new proposals also support this analysis in that there is no reason for the free movement of EU nationals to be suppressed - just their access to UK benefits, housing, schools, NHS etc.

[ApusApus]

I agree with Royal here, I don't believe the UK wants to stop Europeans visiting but rather coming over & then claiming benefits because that's the EU system! Funny though, it doesn't work like that in Cyprus!


Shane

[Jim B]

The UK had the same opportunity to introduce the same legislation in line with EU rules as Cyprus and most other EU member states did but chose not to.
It now appears Australia and New Zealand want the same terms for their citizens as those on offer to the EU..

Jim

[Dominic]

I agree with Royal here, I don't believe the UK wants to stop Europeans visiting but rather coming over & then claiming benefits because that's the EU system! Funny though, it doesn't work like that in Cyprus!


Shane

Which would imply that it is not the EU system.