Voting to remain

[LondonMix]

Jules-- and you think those firms wouldn't have relocated for cheaper labor costs if Britain wasn't in the EU. That is a global problem impacting all high employment cost countries.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the EU grants the companies obtained were based on the country the firms were moving to. That is to say, Britain's membership in the EU had nothing to do with the companies receiving the grant.

Therefore, voting to leave will change absolutely none of that... The same will continue to happen as it happens everywhere in the world except the UK will have worse trade terms and lose its ability to operate as a financial HQ for Europe.

[WorkingMummy]

Whether you want to leave or remain, if you oppose TTIP (which will radically affect us - and the planet - either way) don't forget to sign this petition.

Something you won't be able to do if we leave.

https://stop-ttip.org/sign/

[Jules-and-Boo]

the movements of British industry is because of EU rulings - if this was not a restriction then the companies would not have had these reasons to move and investment would have been found in the UK.

Production of trains is a clear one - we had to enagage all EU companies in the Justification - otherwise the work would have remained in UK

[LondonMix]

So you believe that most companies without explicit tendering rules wouldn't give contracts to the lowest bidders? Aside from government contracts, I simply don't accept that to be a realistic position.

If sovereignty could solve this problem it wouldn't be a major social and political issue in the US, where its impact has been devastating on the former industrial corridors of the nation. I wish the solution was as simple as leaving the E.U. but it isn't.

[Nanny]

Immigration and the effects on children - I'd like to share some facts that many may not be aware of. The focus seems to be on immigration in generic terms and it is assumed the reference or 'the problem' is EU migrants. What about the rest of the world? Be careful what you wish for.

Non EU economic migrants will likely have visas that state 'No recourse to public funds' so they have no option but to work to survive and are not able to claim benefits. The Home Office have tightened their rulings on allowing these people to remain in the UK as although for many years they never counted people in or out of the country, they now want to control numbers and these are therefore deemed the only ones they can target to reduce numbers, so the approach is to decline any extensions or permit any leave to remain requests for non EU migrants, despite allowing these people to remain here for many years, long enough to buy homes, raise families and live peacefully within the community, working and paying taxes. They are no longer welcome according to the Home Office, loopholes are being used to decline applications, lengthy processes are "starving them out of the country" a quote from one immigration solicitor.

Abuse of the EU situation exists. People from non EU countries can trace ancestry to EU countries and obtain an EU passport, some EU countries limit this to within one generation, other countries don't (nor do they check the validity of the application). These are then able to claim benefit in the same way as any other EU migrant. That's clearly unfair to those following the proper channels.

Children born in the UK to non EU economic migrants do not automatically obtain a British passport. Under EU law, once a child reaches the age of 8 they can appeal to remain in the UK but there is no guarantee it will be granted. Under English law the age is 10, it was raised from 8 a few years ago. Currently the Home Office only recognises UK law and to appeal under EU law is an expensive and lengthy process. If the Home Office refuse the parents visa, the child born here has no right to remain here, despite considering themselves British and having spent no time in their parents country of origin. 9 year old children face deportation to countries that are foreign to them, after the British government have invested in their education and health, paid for by their parents tax and NI contributions. Imagine sending your 8 or 9 year old child to live in a foreign country where they had to effectively start their lives over in very different circumstances, potentially being much less well off or in danger.

Immigration is an issue but it is the rules applied that are the issue. They are not clear or democratic and at it's worst, inhumane as they are open to political interpretation of the moment. I am neither advocating remain or leave, I would simply like to see a fair immigration policy implemented across the whole of the EU. I am saddened by the behaviour of the Home Office and it's handling of an application I have personally witnessed as it is so obviously politically driven rather than following the rulebook of 'the best interests of the child'. Everyone seems to accept that there is a need for migrant workers in the UK. Is it beyond the realms of possibility to have a balanced and humane immigration structure in this country that neither favours or excludes people from any country to work in the UK? Can the Home Office accept the mistakes of the past, implement new regulations that are fair and operationally monitored to ensure that overstayers are managed appropriately and let people continue to live their lives here rather than kick them out?

[Jules-and-Boo]

While Briatin is in the EU, anyone from EU can come - no questions. The control of migrants is therefore pushed onto migrants from rest of world. It clearly doesn't work. Non working migrants from EU can come and claim benefits. Restrictions on non EU increase.

As the EU gets larger - Turkey will join soon - this will not improve.

Leaving the EU permits UK to regain control of it's borders and control the flow of people - to suit teh available jobs, resources etc. It's not rocket science... there is a finite amount of land.

No one is saying we don't want a mixed culture - this is not a racist/ xenophobic stance. It's reality is about numbers that will only increase....

London's streets are not paved in gold, although it is believed to be.

[Blah Blah]

WorkingMummy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Whether you want to leave or remain, if you oppose

> TTIP (which will radically affect us - and the

> planet - either way) don't forget to sign this

> petition.

>

> Something you won't be able to do if we leave.

>

> https://stop-ttip.org/sign/

TTIP isn't going to happen. The French are now strongly opposed and the Germans aren't happy that the US won't budge on anything. The UK has guaranteed the NHS will be exempt. TTIP has been 10 years of negotiation so far. It has until Obama leaves office to ratify (hence the high profile at the moment). The chances of the EU nations reaching agreement if the US won't conceed anything by then is pretty slim.

And just to add that TTIP is a perfect example of the difficulty of negotiating trade deals. The minimum time it takes to agree a trade deal is two years. This is what we face if we leave the EU.

[Jules-and-Boo]

https://www.crowdpac.co.uk/eu-referendum-in-or-out

some interesting questions that will help

[WorkingMummy]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> While Briatin is in the EU, anyone from EU can

> come - no questions. ...

>

> Leaving the EU permits UK to regain control of

> it's borders and control the flow of people - to

> suit teh available jobs, resources etc.

This is not accurate. The U.K. already "controls" its borders. This is because of its opt out from the Schengen Treaty concluded in 1995. The U.K. is permitted to conduct not only security checks, but also immigration status checks, at its borders, no matter where the person is travelling from, and even if they are coming in from the EU. So a person's entrance to Greece from Turkey gives that person effective freedom of travel throughout the Schengen area - but not the UK (or Ireland).

This marks the UK out not only from France, Germany, Spain etc - but also from Norway and Switzerland - the oft cited paradigms of "tailor made" arrangements with the EU. They are out of the EU but they want to trade freely with the EU. So they have had to accept free movement of persons. But a point that is not often made is that as EU outsiders they were not included in the Schengen Treaty negotiations are were unable to do as the UK and Ireland did, and opt-out.

So ironically, the two major EEA states who are not EU members have LESS control over their borders than do we. We have full control.

We are not able to deny entry to EU citizens. But if you want to regain our ability to do that, then it's goodbye single market: we would have to leave the EEA (not just the EU). Honestly, if the Swiss (yes we are going to house the HQ of the United Nations here in Geneva but no we are not bloody joining the United Nations (until 2002)) could not get access to tariff-free trade without accepting free movement of persons than neither can we.

We are able to deny entry to non-EU citizens with Schengen visas. (Unlike Switzerland and Norway, who cannot.)

As for Turkey, they will not "join soon". Many countries oppose the move. All that is being negotiated now (as a pragmatic move in return for stemming the tide of Syrian migration through Greece) is for Turkey to get Schengen visa entitlement. As I say this will NOT entitle them to enter the UK.

The U.K. already has the best and most self-determined position vis-a-vis European migration. If you leave, and try to renegotiate a trade deal with the EU from the outside, you will be required to join the Schengen area. Just like any other new member of the EEA.

[maxxi]

WorkingMummy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This is not accurate. The U.K. already "controls"

> its borders... We have full control.

>

> We are not able to deny entry to EU citizens.

Phew - well that's that cleared up then.

[Blah Blah]

Here are some other things to consider on this.

We let 180,000 in from outside the EU last year. They were granted access according to the points/quota system we have for non EU migrants. A small number were asylum seekers.

If we leave the EU, EU citizens will still be able to apply to come here under the same system as non EU migrants. Given that most EU migrants come here to work or study, they would still qualify to come under our points system. So any idea that immigration will be significantly reduced if we leave the EU is nonsense.

This is why the Brexit campaign is ramping up the idea of Turkey and Syria etc joining the EU. They know that people aren't scared by Europeans per se, so they have to find people we are scared of and fit them into their arguments, whether based in truth or not. What they don't tell you is that the UK has a veto on new nations joining - that's a powerful thing. If we leave the EU we will have no say who joins the EU, and then becomes an EU citizen, and then in turn becomes eligible to apply to Britain for entry AS AN EU CITIZEN.

This immigration debate is so easy to tear apart, it really is. And that's before we get into Brits moving to the continent. The Spanish say the same about us btw, that we move there and take all their jobs, don't learn the language, don't assimilate etc. It cuts both ways.

[WorkingMummy]

There is a difference. Between who you have to let in. Amd whether you are allowed to check. Why do you think all those Syrian migrants are stuck in God forsaken camps at Calais. It is not because they like French cheese.

We are allowed to conduct the full gammet of immigration status checks on everyone, travelling in from anywhere. We get to turn away everyone who is not an EU citizen, including Syrian refugees admitted into the rest of the EU by Greece.

I get it, that you want to deny entrance to ALL EU citizens too. But to claim that "leaving the EU" gives you right to deny is just plain wrong. You would have to leave the EEA, and forfeit free trade, too.

And were you to try to regain free-trade via a bespoke deal, you would end up worse off, with less control over our borders. You would end up having to accept Schengen.

Just look at Switzerland and Norway.

[WorkingMummy]

100%, Blah Blah.

[????]

Is that Swizerland the wealthiest per capit country in the World and Norway where 77% would rather remain out you want us to look at?

[Louisa]

There is absolutely no evidence that if the UK leaves the EU we would be under any obligation to accept Schengen. If we want trade deals and to stay in the EEA we would be able to negotiate free movement based on what sort of settlement we receive regarding trade. As others have said previously, the chances of the EU forcing us to accept freedom of movement as part of any deal on trade is ridiculous. We would be by far the largest market place on their doorstep with a substantial population. It would be an entirely different ball game to Swiss and Norweigan trading deals, which they seem very happy with anyway. Don't see either of them in a hurry to join the EU do you?.

Louisa.

[root]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

..

> As the EU gets larger - Turkey will join soon -

> this will not improve.

...

It will be talked about, but won't happen.

[TheArtfulDogger]

root Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> ..

> > As the EU gets larger - Turkey will join soon -

> > this will not improve.

> ...

>

>

> It will be talked about, but won't happen.

Careful that you won't be forced to regret such a bold statement, anything is possible

[LondonMix]

EU migrants have a higher rate of employment than the UK as a whole. The NY Times article put it at 85% and that figure will include their school age children and stay at home parents. The idea that EU migrants are a drain economically is pure fantasy. Their taxes pay for the services they use.

Also, Turkey is no where near joining the EU.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> While Briatin is in the EU, anyone from EU can

> come - no questions. The control of migrants is

> therefore pushed onto migrants from rest of world.

> It clearly doesn't work. Non working migrants from

> EU can come and claim benefits. Restrictions on

> non EU increase.

>

> As the EU gets larger - Turkey will join soon -

> this will not improve.

>

> Leaving the EU permits UK to regain control of

> it's borders and control the flow of people - to

> suit teh available jobs, resources etc. It's not

> rocket science... there is a finite amount of

> land.

>

> No one is saying we don't want a mixed culture -

> this is not a racist/ xenophobic stance. It's

> reality is about numbers that will only

> increase....

>

> London's streets are not paved in gold, although

> it is believed to be.

[WorkingMummy]

Louisa - the evidence is Norway and Switzerland. Particularly Switzerland. You do not get more isolationist than them. They had to accept free movement. Moreover they had to accept Schengen (which we did not). Did you know that in 2014 the Swiss people had a referendum on migration? They voted to cap migration and unilaterally set quotas. Has the Swiss government implemented this referendum? No. Why? Because it can't. Because it cannot just unilaterally negotiate a new deal with the single biggest market in the world.

Get real!!!! No country in the world gets to take whatever it wants from its neighbours without its neighbours getting a say in what is required in return. The kind of "control" and "sovereignty" that Brexit dangles in your face is absolutely imaginary. No one gets to impose unilaterally what it wants on the rest of the bloody world. (Not even the Swiss, who managed to be officially recognised as neutral by the allied forces, and yet avoid invasion by ruddy Hitler in the Second World War.)

If you want free trade, you have to have free movement.

And outside the EU, free movement equals Schengen. That 1995 opt out for UK and Ireland was possible because we were negotiating members of the EU with full rights.

[LondonMix]

The point is Louisa is that you will not get access to the free trade deal without free movement of people. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. Therefore, if your main reason for wanting to leave the EU is to be able to prevent UE citizens from having a right to live and work in Britain you need to recognise that you are 100% saying good-bye to the free trade deal. You just are. Britain is no where near important enough of a market to be given an exception to that.

Moreover, Britain will have to negotiate new trade deals again not just with the EU but with other major trading partners. The trade deal the EU secured with various countries reflected the size of the trading block. The UK as a standalone country will not get the same trade deals with the US etc. Whatever it will get will take years to negotiate.

If someone wants to leave the EU, I respect that but you should make that decision with open eyes to the true cost.

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There is absolutely no evidence that if the UK

> leaves the EU we would be under any obligation to

> accept Schengen. If we want trade deals and to

> stay in the EEA we would be able to negotiate free

> movement based on what sort of settlement we

> receive regarding trade. As others have said

> previously, the chances of the EU forcing us to

> accept freedom of movement as part of any deal on

> trade is ridiculous. We would be by far the

> largest market place on their doorstep with a

> substantial population. It would be an entirely

> different ball game to Swiss and Norweigan trading

> deals, which they seem very happy with anyway.

> Don't see either of them in a hurry to join the EU

> do you?.

>

> Louisa.

[LondonMix]

Also, Blah Blah is right-- even if the UK leaves the EU, total immigration figures are unlikely to go down because there is a skills shortage in this country that migrants fill. More non-EU migrants than EU migrants already enter the country and the UK has 100% control and discretion over their entry.

Yes, perhaps the country could cut off entry completely but it would be a disaster. The NHS relies heavily on immigrants across the board including for senior consultant positions that cannot otherwise be filled. Companies involved in research and science would be the next hardest hit.

Again, the economy will of course suffer as a result. If you want to leave, again that's fine but you should be wide awake to what the reality of that decision means.

[Louisa]

LM and WM, whilst I accept the examples of Switzerland and Norway, and indeed agree that neither of them is able to negotiate above and beyond what they already have, my counter point would be that the UK is a completely different example. If we negotiated a trade deal with the EU, we would be the second largest market place that they would be dealing with away from the United States. We are the 5th largest economy in the world, you just can't compare Norway and Switzerland to us by any measure. They would not stop trading with such a large market place because we choose not to engage in free movement of people and/or Schengen. It just wouldn't happen! Who would cut off their nose to spite their face? (Granted the French may be tempted). Moreover, and a point largely ignored thus far, we are the second biggest contributory economy inside this trading bloc. If we leave it, the German economy would probably have jitters because it would be left to bankroll the majority of the economic contribution towards the EU, and then, in my personal opinion the whole thing would come crashing down like a pack of cards.

Louisa.

[Louisa]

Also WM, our opt out of Schengen was not just as a consequence of EU membership, it was given to us because the EU knew only too well of our contributory importance to the union and didn't want us to leave, they would bend over backwards for us again if needed, and to be fair (by EU standards) already have in the recent negotiations Cameron claimed to have victoriously returned with.

If the Swiss and Norwegians couldnt negotiate a deal on Schengen (despite the recent swiss referendum), it says more about their relative lack of importance to the EU in direct contract to us who they desperately do not want to leave (through gritted teeth or otherwise).

Louisa.

[WorkingMummy]

Which would lead to uuuuuuutopia of course.

An exiting, treaty breaking, reneging UK, which is the fifth largest economy in the world BECAUSE of its access to stable, tarrif-free, centrally regulated European market, would not get a better deal than it has now.

If you are hoping for the collapse of the EU, my god.

[Blah Blah]

We are just 3% of EU GDP in imports Louisa. We only have 65 million people - hardly a sniff for block trade deals. And the EU isn't just Germany and France. It is 27 countries that would ALL have to agree to give us sepcial treatment. We can count Norway and Switzerland out for a start can't we. It's just not going to happen, and the big trade negotiators for the EU have said so as well.

Have a look at this article for a sensible analysis of what part imports and exports might play in post brexit negotiations.

http://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/after-brexit-how-important-would-uk-trade-be-eu#.V12vxKJZiZY

There's a very good table there on who are the biggest trading partners of the EU and then each individual country. There you will see how Germany have plenty of export partners within the EU to not need the UK at all. It's far more complex than you realise or want to understand.