[Trinidad]

Of course, France will lift the gates for those refugees. They are helping their fellow EU country by stopping them in Calais... and the Brits haven't been particularly helpful to the French. When the UK stops being a fellow EU country there is no legal obligation to stop people who want to go to the UK.

And don't tell me that the Brits weren't warned for this. They were, but on the West side of the channel people weren't listening.

Rik

[Winstonm]

 Trinidad, on 2016-July-29, 12:12, said:

Of course, France will lift the gates for those refugees. They are helping their fellow EU country by stopping them in Calais... and the Brits haven't been particularly helpful to the French. When the UK stops being a fellow EU country there is no legal obligation to stop people who want to go to the UK.

And don't tell me that the Brits weren't warned for this. They were, but on the West side of the channel people weren't listening.

Rik

Those who supported Brexit - like the Trump supporters on this side of the pond - are not known for listening skills.

[shyams]

 Trinidad, on 2016-July-29, 12:12, said:

Of course, France will lift the gates for those refugees. They are helping their fellow EU country by stopping them in Calais... and the Brits haven't been particularly helpful to the French. When the UK stops being a fellow EU country there is no legal obligation to stop people who want to go to the UK.

And don't tell me that the Brits weren't warned for this. They were, but on the West side of the channel people weren't listening.

Rik

While I don't disagree that we Brits brought this upon ourselves, the underlying impact of such a hardline stance will lead us down a path of mutually assured destruction.

In an earlier post (link), I wrote that it is not improbable that a Brexit will lead to a massive destabilisation of the European Union superstructure and a consequent destabilisation of the EuroZone.

I still hold that view. Also, there are already signs of a slowdown in the Eurozone economies, and worsening of the Eurozone banking sector. Every new obstacle we create (whether economic or political) will harm both 'sides'. And although it may be unreasonable to expect mercy or grace, such a view by both sides (especially by the UK establishment) will probably help, rather than hurt, all of Europe.

[Trinidad]

 shyams, on 2016-July-29, 14:40, said:

While I don't disagree that we Brits brought this upon ourselves, the underlying impact of such a hardline stance will lead us down a path of mutually assured destruction.

In an earlier post (link), I wrote that it is not improbable that a Brexit will lead to a massive destabilisation of the European Union superstructure and a consequent destabilisation of the EuroZone.

I still hold that view. Also, there are already signs of a slowdown in the Eurozone economies, and worsening of the Eurozone banking sector. Every new obstacle we create (whether economic or political) will harm both 'sides'. And although it may be unreasonable to expect mercy or grace, such a view by both sides (especially by the UK establishment) will probably help, rather than hurt, all of Europe.

I fully agree. In essence you are saying that the Brexit was a silly idea to begin with. But what do you suggest?

Apparently, the UK is tired of fulfilling its obligations to the EU. Fair enough. But when the EU then stops fulfilling its obligations to the UK, now the EU is taking a hardline stance? The UK cannot be "in" for the fun stuff and "out" for the problems.

It's like a group of people who go out and eat together each year. After years one of them announces that he doesn't want to pay for it anymore, but that he, obviously, does want to come and eat.

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

 Trinidad, on 2016-July-29, 12:12, said:

Of course, France will lift the gates for those refugees. They are helping their fellow EU country by stopping them in Calais... and the Brits haven't been particularly helpful to the French. When the UK stops being a fellow EU country there is no legal obligation to stop people who want to go to the UK.

And don't tell me that the Brits weren't warned for this. They were, but on the West side of the channel people weren't listening.

Rik

And some of the Brexiteers will see this as vindication of why they wanted out. This is just another illustration of the French ignoring EU laws that don't suit them. They should not be in Calais at all. If the French applied the relevant laws, they'd send them back to the first EU country they entered which is where they should be applying for asylum, but this is way too much trouble. It's not a great law, but it is the law and the French should be applying it, and if they can't send them back, they should be dealing with the asylum applications themselves.

This is complicated by the fact that most of them don't want to apply in France, but doesn't excuse the Gallic shrug.

[Trinidad]

 Cyberyeti, on 2016-July-30, 02:44, said:

And some of the Brexiteers will see this as vindication of why they wanted out. This is just another illustration of the French ignoring EU laws that don't suit them. They should not be in Calais at all. If the French applied the relevant laws, they'd send them back to the first EU country they entered which is where they should be applying for asylum, but this is way too much trouble. It's not a great law, but it is the law and the French should be applying it, and if they can't send them back, they should be dealing with the asylum applications themselves.

This is complicated by the fact that most of them don't want to apply in France, but doesn't excuse the Gallic shrug.

Yes, the Dublin agreement* says that asylum needs to be sought in the country where they enter the EU. The problem is that they all enter the EU in Italy and Greece and they want to go to the UK (or Germany). Now, tell me, what exactly did the French do wrong in the eyes of the British?

Rik

* The Dublin agreement was pretty much suspended because it was designed for the occasional refugee, and obviously not meant to handle an enormous influx coming from a war zone in a country that is one country away from the EU borders. A new policy has taken over in which incoming refugees need to be shared by EU countries, based on the economic possibility (expressed in GDP) to take care of these people. Now, how many of those did actually enter the UK?

[Cyberyeti]

 Trinidad, on 2016-July-30, 09:21, said:

Yes, the Dublin agreement* says that asylum needs to be sought in the country where they enter the EU. The problem is that they all enter the EU in Italy and Greece and they want to go to the UK (or Germany). Now, tell me, what exactly did the French do wrong in the eyes of the British?

Rik

* The Dublin agreement was pretty much suspended because it was designed for the occasional refugee, and obviously not meant to handle an enormous influx coming from a war zone in a country that is one country away from the EU borders. A new policy has taken over in which incoming refugees need to be shared by EU countries, based on the economic possibility (expressed in GDP) to take care of these people. Now, how many of those did actually enter the UK?

Once they come to the attention of the French authorities, they are illegal migrants to France because they have NOT applied in Italy or Greece, so they are a French legal problem not a UK one. Yes Dublin is a mess and needs reform.

And it's not just this, there are many many rules that we enforce and the French don't particularly around farming, also a load they only apply to foreigners (try to become a ski instructor there as a Brit). Try to remove a hedge around a field in the two countries to see the sort of difference.

[Trinidad]

What do you have against France?

I give you that they don't know how to make fish and chips ... or mint sauce ... or breakfast...

But they have been a peace seeking country, looking for compromises and solutions rather than conflicts, and yes, obviously with their own interests to work for.

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

 Trinidad, on 2016-July-30, 10:50, said:

What do you have against France?

I give you that they don't know how to make fish and chips ... or mint sauce ... or breakfast...

But they have been a peace seeking country, looking for compromises and solutions rather than conflicts, and yes, obviously with their own interests to work for.

Rik

I love France and have spent a good deal of time there. I used to speak good French and can still get around there, I have little against their people but a lot against their spineless politicians who will cave in any time the farmers or unions threaten them.

[mike777]

OK as for all these posts about what to do with immigrants, I assume the answer is what many call for here in the USA. Give them a path to citizenship. Give them access to drive and go to school, etc. Keep in mind we have 60 million immigrants, roughly 15 million illegals.


A few of these posts sound like some wish to build a wall or send them back or split up families.

[fromageGB]

Breakfast? So what's wrong with croissants? And you can buy Ceylan tea anywhere. All I suggest is that you do need to take your own yellow grapefruit. The pamplemousse seems to have died out - I blame the EU.

[wank]

a lot of typically short-sighted selfish british views expressed here. some are expressing the same sort of views they chortle at when expressed by trump supporters on the news.

[onoway]

 mike777, on 2016-July-30, 13:07, said:

OK as for all these posts about what to do with immigrants, I assume the answer is what many call for here in the USA. Give them a path to citizenship. Give them access to drive and go to school, etc. Keep in mind we have 60 million immigrants, roughly 15 million illegals.


A few of these posts sound like some wish to build a wall or send them back or split up families.

What Johnson at least said was that immigrants were both welcome and needed in the UK but the housing, health care and education systems were already to the point of being inadequate for the people already in the UK. Therefore he wanted to see some control over who and how many more were allowed in. Since virtually all countries, certainly Canada and the U.S., have such a system in place, it's a bit odd to see this being greeted with admonishing finger wagging and cries of "racist!"

It's been shown that whenever population density overtakes resources that social structure breaks down and when the resources are already creaking with the (losing) effort to keep up, it makes sense to try to slow the increase which will inevitably stress those resources even more. Tell the people sleeping rough or the families relying heavily on food banks because they aren't earning enough to pay rent and buy adequate food that thousands more people are arriving to compete for housing and food and you are setting up a very bad scenario for the future.

The situation in the US is entirely different even aside from the obvious differences in space and population density. It's been a long time since people could pull up to an American beach and stake out their homestead, and look what happened to the locals when they welcomed and helped the immigrants instead of chasing them off! Perhaps if the native Americans had been just a little fussier about who they let in there'd have been no Trail of Tears or reservations. Perhaps California etc would even still be part of Mexico!

[mike777]

 onoway, on 2016-August-03, 21:09, said:

What Johnson at least said was that immigrants were both welcome and needed in the UK but the housing, health care and education systems were already to the point of being inadequate for the people already in the UK. Therefore he wanted to see some control over who and how many more were allowed in. Since virtually all countries, certainly Canada and the U.S., have such a system in place, it's a bit odd to see this being greeted with admonishing finger wagging and cries of "racist!"

It's been shown that whenever population density overtakes resources that social structure breaks down and when the resources are already creaking with the (losing) effort to keep up, it makes sense to try to slow the increase which will inevitably stress those resources even more. Tell the people sleeping rough or the families relying heavily on food banks because they aren't earning enough to pay rent and buy adequate food that thousands more people are arriving to compete for housing and food and you are setting up a very bad scenario for the future.

The situation in the US is entirely different even aside from the obvious differences in space and population density. It's been a long time since people could pull up to an American beach and stake out their homestead, and look what happened to the locals when they welcomed and helped the immigrants instead of chasing them off! Perhaps if the native Americans had been just a little fussier about who they let in there'd have been no Trail of Tears or reservations. Perhaps California etc would even still be part of Mexico!

They make the same arguments here in the USA, you say nothing new except you are ignorant of this debate in the usa.


As for California....think Spain not mexico...as usual Europe claims America. YOur claIM THAT IF Europe or whoever stops the trails of tears is just idiotic. It would be nice to at the very least look at history or science in your posts.

----


upon reflection perhaps I am too harsh...I just ask that posters look at history.

[shyams]

 fromageGB, on 2016-June-24, 04:35, said:

Interestingly the ONLY region in the whole of England and Wales that voted for remain was London. ALL the rest of the country's regions voted to leave.

Londoners have I suppose seen their house prices increase with all the immigration, and a good proportion of them work for financial institutions and other parasites.

The rest of the country has suffered, with jobs, housing, social services going to immigrants, and the EU is intent on the suffering increasing. When Cameron said he was going to make the North-East the powerhouse of England, perhaps he meant the poorhouse.

Scotland and northern Ireland voted to remain, but now England is leaving perhaps their independence parties will get more active.

Well, the chickens have come home to roost.

Today the Bank of England (the 'lies machine' according to Brexiters in the days before the referendum) slashed the 2017 projected growth rate from 2.3% down to 0.8%. Concurrently, it forecast higher inflation rates (rising to 2.0% next year). I know in a previous post I had written that I hope a downturn (if any) of the economy will be short-lived and the positive attributes of the UK economy will continue to attract investments. However, I am now beginning to doubt my own hopeful assertions. We are in for a bumpy ride; let's just hope it does not turn completely hellish.

If the 'Yes' voters believe the impact will be most felt by London, remember that there is a trickle-down effect of the pain. If it was bad in the North, it will only get worse. Separately, the "Londoners [who] work for financial institutions and other parasites" tend to have funds to fall back on if facing tough times. What about people in depressed regions who were already struggling and will now see their struggles only worsen?

[cherdano]

 onoway, on 2016-August-03, 21:09, said:

It's been shown that whenever population density overtakes resources that social structure breaks down

I am not even sure what that means - your sentence makes about as much sense to me as "whenever the value of a vulnerable slam overtakes the entry fee, then people complain about the results of appeals committees".
Could you, perhaps, explain who has shown that and where? And if so, have social structures broken down in Hong Kong?

But whatever your sentence is supposed to mean, it seems to assume that resources are fixed. Have you ever considered that immigrant might be paying taxes? That it might be possible construct more housing? That food can, if necessary, be imported?

Quote

and when the resources are already creaking with the (losing) effort to keep up, it makes sense to try to slow the increase which will inevitably stress those resources even more. Tell the people sleeping rough or the families relying heavily on food banks because they aren't earning enough to pay rent and buy adequate food that thousands more people are arriving to compete for housing and food and you are setting up a very bad scenario for the future.

[Trinidad]

 onoway, on 2016-August-03, 21:09, said:

What Johnson at least said was that immigrants were both welcome and needed in the UK but the housing, health care and education systems were already to the point of being inadequate for the people already in the UK. Therefore he wanted to see some control over who and how many more were allowed in.

The logic of this reasoning seems to be widely accepted (or at least you accept it), but it completely escapes me.

Say, I need canned tomatoes. They are welcome and needed. Unfortunately, I don't have any space on my shelves. They are filled with expired stuff and crisps that are not healthy anyway. And I don't really have the money to buy the canned tomatoes, probably due to the amounts of money I spent in the pub.

In that case, anybody smart would reorganize his shelves, start eating healthy at the same time, spend a little less in the pub, and work a little extra hours. Not Boris Johnson. He simply continues to say that canned tomatoes are needed and welcome while joining the people that yell: "We have too many canned tomatoes! The shelves are full!".

Rik

[1eyedjack]

So a Tesco home delivery van turns up on my doorstep out of the blue. Knock on door. "Hello, sir, I understand that you need some cans of tomatoes, beans, peas, and lentils. Sorry but we are out of beans, peas and lentils, but you are in luck, we have 700000 cans of tomatoes here, which you are obliged to take delivery of, if you would just sign here, per the small print in this contract that you signed 40 years ago. Short of shelf space? No problem, just rearrange your shelves and don't go out to the pub for a week or two."

Now, I do not regard that as being a cogent argument, but neither am I impressed by other attempts to distil a complex issue into a trite allegory of a supermarket shopping spree as some pseudo-clever proof of a point being made.

[helene_t]

Weird analogy, Rik. So we just rearrange and/or discard the least useful natives in order to make space for the immigrants?

No, the argument should be that migration is good for society overall. Immigrants put pressure on some resources but they also deliver new resources. And migration goes the other way also. It is possible that some countries lose - brain drain may be a problem for some countries. Not for the UK, though.

[fromageGB]

 Trinidad, on 2016-August-04, 06:27, said:

...Not Boris Johnson. He simply continues to say that canned tomatoes are needed and welcome while joining the people that yell: "We have too many canned tomatoes! The shelves are full!".
Rik

I think perhaps you may be misunderstanding. He is not saying we need more tomatoes of any type. He is saying that our shelves are full of canned pointy tomatoes, but we can always do with more of the rounded ones, that are in short supply and needed. Give us the ability to let us select which tomatoes we import. Otherwise the shelves will indeed collapse.