Indeed.
Some of the really clever ones on here haven't thought this one through very well, a bit like Cameron when he agreed to the referendum.

Electronic clearing software is freely available and used all over the world - this is standard stuff. How do London manage the congestion charge? We are talking about Ireland with a combined population of 7m - less than London hardly downtown Mexico City.

Eire could become the gateway to the UK or, N.Ireland a gateway to The EU, depending on your preferences.
Back in the day, the level of avoidance/smuggling between the north and south was huge in the border towns and post Brexit, the scope could be somewhat wider.

Depends on your view of huge and it is an island that has a relcatively small population. So there are limits of what can be smuggled out without detection.

Compare the lost revenues of this to the inability to collect corporation tax and its tiny - Apple's bill is 13bn that a lot of trucks across one border

We've always been leaving the customs union, as has been stated god knows how many times. We'll either end up in a bespoke customs union and/or trade deal (most likely) or walk away on WTO terms (unlikely). Remember, anything that sees the UK on harsh terms also damages the EU economy and countless businesses in EU nations, something EU leaders will not be keen on.

The reasons for leaving are clear: we can't be in the EU CU without adhering to key EU laws, which is precisely what we voted against. It also restricts our ability to sign trade deals with non-EU nations. Furthermore, remaining in the CU would be absolute political suicide for the Tories. Not going to happen.

As I mentioned, it's all bluster. Politicians who can't accept Brexit, or who are raising their profile at Westminster. These 'meaningful' votes will amount to nothing in the grand scheme of things. For example, the customs union vote that went through the Lords recently - it was advisory and May rightly dismissed it out of hand in no time.

Quote ="wrencat1873"Eire could become the gateway to the UK or, N.Ireland a gateway to The EU, depending on your preferences. Back in the day, the level of avoidance/smuggling between the north and south was huge in the border towns and post Brexit, the scope could be somewhat wider.'" Knock yerself out: https://capx.co/how-to-fix-the-irish-border-problem/

Quote ="wrencat1873"Eire could become the gateway to the UK or, N.Ireland a gateway to The EU, depending on your preferences. Back in the day, the level of avoidance/smuggling between the north and south was huge in the border towns and post Brexit, the scope could be somewhat wider.'" Knock yerself out: https://capx.co/how-to-fix-the-irish-border-problem/

Still clinging to the ridiculous notion it hurts them as well as us so 27 other countries will cave in are we?




A hard brexit will be political suicide for the Tories as well. You seem to be confused between laws and regulations. We will have to adhere to agree to regulations if we want to trade with them post Brexit anyway. They will not accept anything from us that does not comply with their regulations be it bacon or cars. Get used to the EU dictating what we can do without us having a say in those self same rules. It's what you voted for.

If we have a trade deal there will need to be aribritation to handle disputes. The EU might agree it is not the ECJ but even if they do, we don't get to dictate the rules.

As to remaining in the customs union restricting our ability to conclude trade deals with other countries you are dead right. It does. What you can't see though is that the world doesn't owe the UK any favours. When we will seek a trade deal with the USA, India or China when they say jump, we will ask "how high". As part of the EU we can annoy Trump and NOT accept all the rubbish they want to send us such as chlorinated chicken of GM modified foodstuffs. Outside the EU that will be the price of a trade deal and once we accept the rubbish other countries will insist on selling us we immediately exclude ourselves from the EU market.

The problem you quitters have is you think a) the EU stance is all a bluff which it is not and b) there as a world of trade out there we can tap into which there isn't, because the rest of the world already buys exactly what it wants from us now. There are no vast new markets we are primed to exploit.

This is by the way ignoring the obvious practical problems that if a customs union ceases to exist post brexit manufacturing industry will grind to a halt. And the politics of Northern Ireland.

Brexit is a complete mess and it really is not going to work out well.

Quote ="Cronus"Knock yerself out: https://capx.co/how-to-fix-the-irish-border-problem/'" An interesting read. And for the flipside qpol.qub.ac.uk/irish-border-oxymoron/ As with all these issues, it depends who you choose to believe and as I mentioned in an earlier post,if this is so simple to solve, "we" would have moved on to other trade issues by now.

Quote ="Cronus"Knock yerself out: https://capx.co/how-to-fix-the-irish-border-problem/'" An interesting read. And for the flipside qpol.qub.ac.uk/irish-border-oxymoron/ As with all these issues, it depends who you choose to believe and as I mentioned in an earlier post,if this is so simple to solve, "we" would have moved on to other trade issues by now.

Cave in? Why does anyone need to 'cave in'. Neither side wants a damaging solution and while I've stated repeatedly we're unlikely to see exactly the same conditions as we have now within the EU, I doubt there will be punitive conditions in place.

And frankly I have no problem with taking a hit to extricate ourselves from the EU.


You mean the regulations we already meet, and in many cases, exceed? Why would this be a problem? Most of those regulations are perfectly reasonable.

Hard...soft...both irrelevant terms and entirely subjective. Brexit will be what Brexit is.

BTW, EU regulations are still EU law - 'secondary legislation', no less. No confusion here.


Shocking...legal bodies are required to handle arbitration? Again, I see no problem with this. Of course we won't get to dictate the rules, but neither will the EU. That's not generally how disputes or negotiations are handled. Existing EU law is being enshrined in UK law as I'm sure you're aware, thus maintaining parity. If in the future we choose to duplicate a new EU law it'll be because it's in our best interests, not because the EU has demanded it.


Agreeing trade deals doesn't hinge on anyone 'owing favours'. What an utterly ridiculous notion. It generally comes down to a proposition, mutual benefit and agreement. You're making a lot of assumptions here, one of which is that we can't possible stand up for ourselves in negotiations. Another is that emotion plays a key part of trade negotiations. My, how does the rest of the world survive outside the EU?


The problem blinkered (and apparently drunk) Remoaners have is sweeping generalisations. I'm sure you're aware the EU Customs Union acts as a barrier to outside goods and services and indeed trade deals, which will open up. And meanwhile trade with the EU will continue.

Dave's idea of Brexit negotiations:
Barnier: You don't frighten us, English pig-dogs! Go and boil your bottoms, sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called Prime Minister, you and all your silly English kaniggets. Thppppt!
May: What a strange person.
Davis: Now look here, my good man!
Barnier: I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough whopper! I fart in your general direction! You mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!


The idea that everything will grind to a halt is another ridiculous notion. Sure, some sectors and businesses will need to adapt, just as they do after every boom & bust.


And that, Dave, is why you shouldn't post when drunk. Also why you shouldn't buy every line coming out of Brussels and the leftist press.

Most of the Labour Party and a group of tories want to stay in the customs union. The EU have made it quite clear that the rules of the EU state that you can’t arrange free trade on your own behalf, if you are in this union. So if we arrive at this situation it will mean we haven’t left the EU. Sadly the chattering metropolitan elite know this, so it’s quite obviously a ploy to scupper the democratic vote. Ironically the unelected House of Lords is behind all this. The Irish border issue is being used by the EU as a weapon to disrupt negotiations. The majority of trade between Eire and the UK does not go through Northern Ireland. Border movements can easily be controlled by vehicle number recognition cameras. When I fly from Manchester airport, I pay before and the barriers system recognises my plate and let’s me in. If Teresa may had any courage she should tell all the parties concerned we won’t erect any hard border posts. If you want to put up border posts it’s up to you. I note that we purchase large quantities of beef from Eire. If Eire makes things difficult I am quite certain we can buy from other sources. The situation remains the same a democratic vote took place and one side won and the other lost. Although you would think that never happened, if you listened to Blair,Adonis, Campbell etc etc.

At this point, it's not about winning or losing, it's about getting the best future for the UK, end of story.
There is significant disagreement on what may be the best for the UK and Mrs May and her negotiating side appear to be clinging on to a "miracle" bespoke deal that will leave the UK with a free trade agreement AND the ability to negotiate directly with other Nations.
As this would put the UK at an advantage over thew EU27, it isnt going to happen.
Why on earth would the EU "allow" the UK to have the best of both worlds (you could say "having its cake and eating it).

The phrase "dream on" springs to mind.

But Brexit was supposed to be all about controlling immigration, at least to a large number of those voting out. With zero border that is impossible.

Only a supreme optimist would imagine that the EU would allow us to remain in the customs union ,and conduct free trade deals with the rest of the world. You quite rightly state that would indeed be having our cake and eating it. It will never happen. The problem with Teresa May is she is a weak leader. She is terrified of of outlining any hard and fast proposals to the EU ,in case they refuse them. She is hoping that eventually the EU will come up with some sort of deal that will be acceptable to parliament. Dream on Teresa, although I have some sympathy for her ,as the majority of parliament and the House of Lords have never Fully supported brexit. Highlighted by jezzas treacherous visit to see Barnier in Brussels. Labour is hoping for a bad brexit deal. This would be blamed on the tories, thus paving the way for a labour government. A nightmare scenario a bad brexit deal and a socialist/Marxist government.

I agree.
As usual, our 5 year parliament trumps any decisions that need to be taken for the long term prosperity of the country and trying to appease party members on such a toxic subject is nigh on impossible for the strongest of leaders and neither May or Corbyn fall into this category.
I firmly believe that we will end up with a deal that suits neither side (of the Brexit debate) and just as a bonus, we will all be just a little bit poorer as a result.
Although it was never going to happen, the Brexit "deal" should have been agreed on a cross party basis as it's, to important to be fought over by petty party political issues.

Have just read several articles and seen various comments regarding EFTA . At face value joining this group would seem to give us most of what we would require in leaving the EU.

Should just go with the Norway option. No fuss.

Short of cancelling the whole mess - that does seem like the best compromise; although it would require Norway to vote for it, and they might have words to say about being shouldered aside as EEA top dogs. And then there's the small matter of free movement of people, which is a requirement of EEA membership - it's like a red rag to a xenophobic bull.

I remember plenty of Brexiteers saying the Norway model was a good idea during the referendum campaign.

Oh please, does anyone with a reasonably functioning brain actually think the freedom of movement is a good idea? It's without doubt the most idiotic, illogical and damaging rule the EU enforces on its members, and a major reason for the leave vote. Yes, it brings in cheap labour and pretty baristas, but piles problems and pressure upon infrastructure and communities. Communities who never asked for it, and who we (as the UK) should actually be more concerned with protecting, than the right of Gheorghe from Romania to stroll in unannounced with his family in tow.

Free movement of goods, services and capital - yes, great idea, let's go ahead - but why movement of people needs to be tagged still baffles me. Amongst a relatively small EU of reasonably equal countries, maybe, but not when the EU have been furiously bringing in members leading to massive floods of migration in one direction.

So, unless the EU astonish us all and allow Article 112 of the EEA Agreement to be implemented, FoM is one of the primary reasons the Norway model isn't a realistic option. Another is that that we're not Norway, we're much bigger and different in terms of population and economy. Nope, I'd rather we just remained as full members - and I'd sooner be castrated with papercuts than do that under current EU structure.

Wow - that escalated quickly.

We've been down this route before - but you do know that the facts simply don't support your argument, right? Infrastructure and services are not under pressure because of immigration, but because they've been systematically underfunded due to the austerity programme; and once again, EU migrants are net contributors to the UK economy.

I know we're in an era when people believe that their opinions are better than facts, but being loud and forceful doesn't make you any less wrong.

Poorer communities very rarely get what they ask for. Involvement in local decision making, less pollution, safer streets, decent jobs, good educational opportunities, good health care, good social services, modern sports facilities, good public transport, a public library, good child care are what people want & need. Virtually nothing to do with Europe or immigration.

This.

The NHS Trust I work for has had to make £3m in cuts over the past 3 years. This has affected services more than immigration - upon which we rely on for a large proportion of our staff.

Ok, let's have a look. Get a brew and a digestive.

I didn't say they weren't net contributors, but I don't consider a small (and arguable) net contribution in fiscal terms good enough argument to perpetuate the idiocy of freedom of movement between hugely unequal countries. It's not immigration that creates the problems per se, it's the rate of arrivals. I'm not anti-immigration, I'm anti-mass, uncontrolled immigration. Just how long do you think a rough average net migration of 230,000 for the last 15 years can continue?

And let me be clear - I don't attribute this all to EU immigration, indeed non-EU immigration is more costly to the UK, however it's a significant factor and one that we can begin to fix via Brexit.

In reality their actual contribution is highly debatable. Immigration is estimated to raise GDP by around 0.5% per year, however as it also increases population by roughly the same rate any benefit is minimal. Even the pro-EU House of Lords found that immigration offers little-to-no economic benefit to the UK, although of course the immigrants themselves benefit. They also noted this reflected similar studies in other countries. Taking a number of studies in the round the benefit to the exchequer certainly appears negligible.

The Lords also estimated that every 100 non-EU working-age migrants are initially associated with 23 fewer native British people employed. But that's another story.

The fact is, immigration is contributing to our population growing at its fastest rate since the Industrial Revolution. 55% of the population increase between 91-16 was due to the direct contribution of net migration. We're a small, densely populated country with a severe housing crisis. Whether you think that's a problem right at this moment is irrelevant - you need to look 10, 20, 50, 100 years into the future to get an idea of how dire the situation will become unless measures are taken, or a massive house-building programme is implemented immediately which would inevitably see further swathes of green-belt land disappear. Up to 90% of new households in the UK each year are headed by someone of overseas origin. In London it's 100%. As most immigrants tend to move to cities, their impact there is more significant, squeezing demand and driving up prices and - bearing in mind most migrants rent - driving up rental costs.

Of course, an aging population (the rate of which will only increase as immigrants since 2000 reach old age) is a key factor, but so is immigration. Furthermore, as migrants tend to have bigger families, births to migrants and to their children will be an enormous factor in exponential population growth in the future. The numbers just pile up over and over.

The NHS absolutely feels pressure due to immigration. There were 745,000 new migrant GP registrations in 2015/16 alone. Please don't try to tell me these numbers aren't squeezing waiting times and demand, because they are, especially in high migrant areas. On a related note, the cost of overseas visitors and immigrants to the NHS is around £2 billion pa - for this reason the immigration health surcharge was introduced for non-EEA and temporary migrants, soon to increase to £400. The NHS is of course partly at fault here: for years they have failed miserably to recover the costs of treating EEA citizens. EEA countries have claimed up to £650m for treating UK citizens, while the NHS claims often much less than £70m. And yes I appreciate austerity is a factor, so it makes little sense to continue to allow such high numbers of potential patients.

Yes, yes, we know a significant proportion of NHS staff are of overseas origin. No-one is talking of removing their right to work, or indeed restricting the ability of qualified medical workers moving here where no British worker is available, so spare me the argument.

Schools are also absolutely under pressure due to an increase in the birth rate since 2000 following a slight slowdown in the 90s. New immigrant arrivals and higher birth rates to higher-fertility previous immigrants are the main factor: 78% of the increase in birth rate is down to immigrant births. How can you project school places if you have no idea how many children might arrive or be born in your area? You can't. I have first-hand experience of British children being unable to get into their local schools while immigrant children are given places. Most primary schools are now facing a shortfall of places due to rising demand as immigrant children reach school-age. It's happening whether you like it or not.

In addition, I recently saw a school proudly boasting that 40+ languages were spoken in their classrooms - why on earth is this a good thing? All it means is precious time and resources spent supporting non-English speaking children: £270m in 2016, to be precise. Not an inconsiderable cost.

I also saw an interesting programme prior to the referendum, which followed new immigrant arrivals. In one case, a young chap from Eastern Europe arrived and tried to claim housing and find work as a labourer. After some time homeless he was deported. Thwarted, he simply came back the next year unannounced with his wife and 4 children and was immediately given a house and benefits due to children being involved. This is far from an isolated case. No pressure on housing or indeed benefits, of course.

There is also pressure on the transport infrastructure. Our road network has little room to expand, especially in and around cities. Similarly our public transport networks. Most Impact Assessments on transport have never accounted for increases in the rate of population growth - they assume the UK population to be reasonably constant, or at least growing at 'natural', relatively slow rates. Again, how can anyone plan ahead when they can't forecast the actual numbers?

I could also talk about how rapid mass immigration on communities can be stressful and create friction, and I'd be interested to see which of you shouts 'Little Englander' or xenophobia or racism first. But let me ask you another question: why is it so important to you that immigrants are able to come here unfettered? Why is it less important to address the concerns of British citizens?

We all know Corbyn and his cronies are anti-UK, anti-white, anti-semite. Is that true for everyone on the left?

Whatever. The simple fact is, working-age populations (skilled and unskilled) from Eastern and Southern Europe are flooding in massive numbers to the UK, the French/German area and parts of Scandinavia, although the rate to the UK has been slowing for obvious reasons. Why anyone thinks this a good situation I really can't fathom. Even [url=https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/01/why-its-time-end-eu-free-movementfreaking Vince Cable[/url agrees it's of little benefit to the UK.

Again, I don't attribute these pressures solely to EU immigrants. But they remain a hugely significant factor and as I've always said - it's a numbers game, nothing more.

TL;DR: bren2k's 'facts' are anything but.

Can't really disagree with anything you've said and I think the bold bit just about sums it all up. It's not about who, it's about how many, and what the numbers/issues will be in another 10, 20, 30 years time. And that's coming from someone who has been branded a 'trendy lefty' in the past.

Only recently I was in a discussion where immigrant healthcare workers were being praised for looking after our ageing population. Fair play to them, coming to another country to look after folk who are seeing out their last years, but I had to ask if immigrant workers were going to have extended families and in turn get old and need care themselves. At that moment there was a dawning realisation among the group that immigrant workers hadn't yet found the powers of everlasting youth, in fact it seemed to come as a shock to them! It's just short-term thinking all the time. Solve the problem now but don't touch on how we're going to solve the bigger problem in the next few decades as the immigrant population expands and ages along with the native population, and probably to an even older age. Who's going to look after them?

Immigration is just one piece in the puzzle and while it's an uncomfortable topic for most, the birth/death rates and population projection throw up even more uncomfortable questions.

This sums up the Brexit argument entirely. They are oblivious to the idea that this isn't some evil empire "enforcing" rules on member countries. Those member countries are signed up members whose governments have negotiated mutually beneficial arrangements.