Huffington Post, must be based on fact, honest!

There are plenty of other references - I preferred that one because it was simple; but there is no argument, regardless of your political leanings, that those powers exist, have always existed, and successive UK governments have failed to use them.

And yet, more than half of our immigration was already "controlled".
FWIW, there should always have been some control and the leaders of the EU have steadfastly stuck to their "free movement" mantra without any consideration of the consequences.
We should have worked from the inside to make change though and not sacrificed our position.

The housing and free health care is just a red herring though.

Do you think that people would really move 1000's of miles just for these benefits, it's just utter nonsense, again, stirred up by the right wing press, giving their loyal readers what they want on the front page of their chip paper.

The Eastern Europeans that I personally know seem to be willing to work damned hard to try and make a life for themselves and the main issue is probably more to do with them sending money home, rather than spending their money in the UK, something which is also prevalent among some of our Asian immigrants but, the work shy scrounger type comments are just wrong.
Mind you there are plenty of British people who are more than happy to use immigration as an excuse not to work rather than crack on with their lives.

Doesn't matter how often you post it, it's not quite as simple as that. It's actually highly debatable and depends on the methodology and assumptions of the analysis. And beyond the economic effect of immigration you conveniently ignore pressures and disruption on communities, services, housing, etc. A price not worth paying.

Taken in the round, most studies conclude that while more recent and younger EU migrants probably make a negligible fiscal contribution, earlier and older EU migrants tend to be a burden. Non-EU are a burden overall. They also conclude that while the individual migrant sees some benefit to moving to the UK, the existing population sees little to none, and from a social perspective probably experiences a disruptive impact.

And where does it stop? How many a year should we allow in? Even the looniest lefty must accept net migration cannot continue at 250-300,000 a year (up to 600,000 migrants minus 300,000 emigrants). You think the housing crisis is bad now? Take a moment to consider the much higher birth rate of those 600,000 annual migrants, together with our rapidly aging population. Then look 10...20...40...100 years ahead. If you can't see where this massive and exponential population growth is going, you don't understand the wider picture.


This wasn't directed at me, but here's my answer - I really couldn't care less.

Data harvesting and profiling has existed for decades, nothing new. If CA were so effective they'd have steered Ted Cruz to victory when they worked for him, surely? In fact, the only sin CA committed was a violation of Facebook policy when they bought the legally harvested data from Aleksandr Kogan, who developed the harvesting app. Despite their bold sales pitch (widely ridiculed in their field), in reality the degree of influence that several years-old data could have had on Facebook users during the Trump campaign is minimal.

In the same vein, I reckon every marketing company in the world is desperate for the secret of Russian success in somehow swaying millions of voters - Saatchi & Saatchi eat your heart out. Oh they were active, no doubt, but the degree of their influence is also hugely questionable.

And it's not as though all players aren't active online during campaigns. Voters would have most likely seen content related to their profile history either way. Take away the Russians and there are plenty of other campaign groups fighting for Facebook space and pushing the their agenda. Given that Facebook feeds show what the user is already interested in, it's unlikely they swung many voters.

Nah, Remainers clutching at straws to explain why they didn't win is embarrassing.


Really? I'd say you've been duped hook, line & sinker by the great EU project. As far as I'm concerned Remainers have been brainwashed by a Germanic elite with a dangerous agenda.

Answer me a question I've posted a few times without receiving a reply: why are you so desperately concerned with the right of migrants to move to UK? Why is that more important to you than the concerns of the majority of the UK population?

Sorry you were talking about swapping goods currently sourced from the EU for ones sourced outside the EU.

Self-inflicted currency meltdown apart, goods sourced from China (say) will be the same price but that wasn't your point.

To replace EU-sourced ones - even if directly comparable goods could be made of the same quality for a reasonable cost (doubtful in lots of sectors) - you add on transport costs and duty/import tariffs. Oh, and also add on TIME for it to be slow boated by Maersk or MSC to the UK unless you want to airfreight it at huge cost - JIT is so fundamentally critical in a modern economy it's staggering it doesn't get mentioned more to deflect the rubbish spouted by people like the Sun article the other day highlighting how Felixtowe could simply be used instead of Dover.

I'm pretty sure - but happy to be shown otherwise - that the power to place a 7 year transitional period (generally consisting of 2+3+2 year review periods) on working rights is a one-off when a new country joins the EU, not a power that can be implemented at any time. We can therefore thank Blair for being a massive cockwomble. Not that it really matters; a temporary delay is just that and doesn't prevent the inevitable.

As for the remainder of the controls, as with most things it's not that simply and in reality they would do little to limit the numbers even if enforced in full.

First off, pretty much any EU citizen can turn up and live here for 3 months unchallenged, after which they can fudge their way through. if just one member of a family is working - even if they go from job to job - they can stay. Any period not in work but not of their own making is regarded as employment. Any period out of work for health reasons is counted as employment. They can even leave the UK and go home for extended periods without affecting their recorded length of stay here.

Even if not 'economically active', the state MUST assess whether this is a temporary situation and take into account the length of stay, personal circumstances and any welfare awarded. If there are kids involved it's even more complex. Only if they are then judged to be an "unreasonable burden" (a vague test at best) can any action be taken. Of course if they get a job while all this is going on the assessment comes to an end.

Once they have stayed 5 years they are here permanently, without condition.

Deportations are slow, expensive and very difficult to enforce and the fact is until 2010 we had a government completely plugged into the EU experiment and blind to the growing concerns of their own people. Indeed, it's only in the last few years we can even question the EU, FoM and immigration without being shouted down by rabid loonies as racist or xenophobic. Even the Tories were unwilling to go there for a few years for the same reason. On the basis of that track record, it's little surprise there have been few real controls in the UK.

Even if we point the finger of blame solely at successive UK governments, the fact remains millions have flocked here, millions more will come if they can and action needs to be taken. We can't ignore it. In light of Brexit and the rise (and fall) of UKIP, the Tories now seem to appreciate the depth and strength of public feeling against continued mass immigration, hence the need for far stricter immigration laws and to leave the Single Market.


Not true. They were introduced in 2004 when the A-8 joined the EU, precisely because a vast wave of economic migration was predicted.

I think your talking rubbish - Apple consistenly are appraised as having the best supply chain in the world by the likes of Gartner - where do you think all their product is sourced and constructed - not in the EU. Same goes for Dell who used to produce in Eire now its all in the far east. Will these goods be anymore expensive or any less available than now when we leave the EU? Why do you think they don't manaufacture in the EU? because the cost of Labour is cheaper than the cost of transport/tarifs.


These are companies that understand supply chain and how to maximise its value - the idea that other companies will not see us leaving the EU as an opportunity to increase market share is barmy to me. The natural supply/demand curve will come into play - if the goods are too expensive then consummers will locate cheaper alternatives so if the EU countries want to export to the UK then they will have to have prices that represent value for money.

It's not the high cost, long shelf life products that were talking about here.
China = 5 weeks shipping time (+manufacture) EU = 2/3 days shipping time (+manufacture) and yet, some believe there is a magic want to re source our EU purchase elsewhere with cheaper alternatives.
Whilst there will be some products that have been difficult to trade, do you not think that if there were these new supply bases scattered around the world, perhaps we may have found a way to use them already or, maybe, that doesn't suit you're argument.

Not if there was no real need - now there is a potential need - guess what they will start to emerge. Africa would seem low cost reasonably close especially the north - pretty volatile but it is an option. US should be in line cost wise with the EU and not that far away and if Trump revs the economy up who knows.

I think the idea that everything will inevitably cost more is unproven - Aldi/Lidl have shown if you can offer better value people will soon move and ditch the higher priced branded product. There will someone out there who finds a way there always in - simple supply and demand economics.

Quote ="Sal Paradise"Not if there was no real need - now there is a potential need - guess what they will start to emerge. Africa would seem low cost reasonably close especially the north - pretty volatile but it is an option. US should be in line cost wise with the EU and not that far away and if Trump revs the economy up who knows. I think the idea that everything will inevitably cost more is unproven - Aldi/Lidl have shown if you can offer better value people will soon move and ditch the higher priced branded product. There will someone out there who finds a way there always in - simple supply and demand economics.'" Are you being deliberately shy with facts or, just putting your spin on certain issues. Average shipping time from USA would be 3 weeks (slightly less from the East Side). Aldi and Lidl's success is in stocking a limited range of products, topped up with "seasonal specials", which massively reduces their overheads, allowing them to be "more competitive" than such as Sainsbury or Tesco. Trading with the EU makes sense due to its geographic location, which is only needed for short shelf life and quick turnaround product. The UK spends huge amounts in China and India, taking advantage of their extremely cheap labour (around $50/ month in China for factory workers) and less in parts of Asia. There are trading opportunities in Africa but, many of these are not new, the company I worked for previously exported all over the world and imported from India, China, Zimbabwe (until their currency exploded), along with most of the major European countries. We exported into Kenya, Uganda, Australia, Scandinavia, Canada etc and many European countries, which has become far, far easier over the last 30+ years. There will always be new opportunities but, there certainly isnt a huge untapped source in some new unknown nation to either buy from or sell to. Africa will be the next new "cheap" supply option but, this will be available for EU nations to "take advantage of" and not reserved for those on the outside. If all else was equal, why would anyone want to buy from the US instead of The EU, it doesnt make sense. Just more fantasy island stuff www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... -lower-av/ $20 per hour average compared to the UK £14 (with plenty on the minimum wage) I know its difficult but, let's have some serious facts rather than crossed fingers.

Quote ="Sal Paradise"Not if there was no real need - now there is a potential need - guess what they will start to emerge. Africa would seem low cost reasonably close especially the north - pretty volatile but it is an option. US should be in line cost wise with the EU and not that far away and if Trump revs the economy up who knows. I think the idea that everything will inevitably cost more is unproven - Aldi/Lidl have shown if you can offer better value people will soon move and ditch the higher priced branded product. There will someone out there who finds a way there always in - simple supply and demand economics.'" Are you being deliberately shy with facts or, just putting your spin on certain issues. Average shipping time from USA would be 3 weeks (slightly less from the East Side). Aldi and Lidl's success is in stocking a limited range of products, topped up with "seasonal specials", which massively reduces their overheads, allowing them to be "more competitive" than such as Sainsbury or Tesco. Trading with the EU makes sense due to its geographic location, which is only needed for short shelf life and quick turnaround product. The UK spends huge amounts in China and India, taking advantage of their extremely cheap labour (around $50/ month in China for factory workers) and less in parts of Asia. There are trading opportunities in Africa but, many of these are not new, the company I worked for previously exported all over the world and imported from India, China, Zimbabwe (until their currency exploded), along with most of the major European countries. We exported into Kenya, Uganda, Australia, Scandinavia, Canada etc and many European countries, which has become far, far easier over the last 30+ years. There will always be new opportunities but, there certainly isnt a huge untapped source in some new unknown nation to either buy from or sell to. Africa will be the next new "cheap" supply option but, this will be available for EU nations to "take advantage of" and not reserved for those on the outside. If all else was equal, why would anyone want to buy from the US instead of The EU, it doesnt make sense. Just more fantasy island stuff www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... -lower-av/ $20 per hour average compared to the UK £14 (with plenty on the minimum wage) I know its difficult but, let's have some serious facts rather than crossed fingers.

Quote ="wrencat1873"Are you being deliberately shy with facts or, just putting your spin on certain issues. Average shipping time from USA would be 3 weeks (slightly less from the East Side). Aldi and Lidl's success is in stocking a limited range of products, topped up with "seasonal specials", which massively reduces their overheads, allowing them to be "more competitive" than such as Sainsbury or Tesco. Trading with the EU makes sense due to its geographic location, which is only needed for short shelf life and quick turnaround product. The UK spends huge amounts in China and India, taking advantage of their extremely cheap labour (around $50/ month in China for factory workers) and less in parts of Asia. There are trading opportunities in Africa but, many of these are not new, the company I worked for previously exported all over the world and imported from India, China, Zimbabwe (until their currency exploded), along with most of the major European countries. We exported into Kenya, Uganda, Australia, Scandinavia, Canada etc and many European countries, which has become far, far easier over the last 30+ years. There will always be new opportunities but, there certainly isnt a huge untapped source in some new unknown nation to either buy from or sell to. Africa will be the next new "cheap" supply option but, this will be available for EU nations to "take advantage of" and not reserved for those on the outside. If all else was equal, why would anyone want to buy from the US instead of The EU, it doesnt make sense. Just more fantasy island stuff www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... -lower-av/ $20 per hour average compared to the UK £14 (with plenty on the minimum wage) I know its difficult but, let's have some serious facts rather than crossed fingers.'" Are you struggling with reading or are you being deliberately obtuse? I never mentioned selling product anywhere - I only suggested alternatives to EU sourced products. I used Aldi/Lidl as an example of where consumers are more than willing to accept a cheaper alternative i.e. create demand through pricing product attractively. What do you think is going to happen if EU product increases in price - demand will drop off as consumers seek out cheaper options. What do you think the EU producers response will be to falling demand - do nothing or reduce their prices? I appreciate the blindingly obvious is difficult when your views are so entrenched but this will be the reality - consumers aren't lemmings they will react negatively to increased costs as Aldi/Lidl's competitors have discovered.

Quote ="wrencat1873"Are you being deliberately shy with facts or, just putting your spin on certain issues. Average shipping time from USA would be 3 weeks (slightly less from the East Side). Aldi and Lidl's success is in stocking a limited range of products, topped up with "seasonal specials", which massively reduces their overheads, allowing them to be "more competitive" than such as Sainsbury or Tesco. Trading with the EU makes sense due to its geographic location, which is only needed for short shelf life and quick turnaround product. The UK spends huge amounts in China and India, taking advantage of their extremely cheap labour (around $50/ month in China for factory workers) and less in parts of Asia. There are trading opportunities in Africa but, many of these are not new, the company I worked for previously exported all over the world and imported from India, China, Zimbabwe (until their currency exploded), along with most of the major European countries. We exported into Kenya, Uganda, Australia, Scandinavia, Canada etc and many European countries, which has become far, far easier over the last 30+ years. There will always be new opportunities but, there certainly isnt a huge untapped source in some new unknown nation to either buy from or sell to. Africa will be the next new "cheap" supply option but, this will be available for EU nations to "take advantage of" and not reserved for those on the outside. If all else was equal, why would anyone want to buy from the US instead of The EU, it doesnt make sense. Just more fantasy island stuff www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... -lower-av/ $20 per hour average compared to the UK £14 (with plenty on the minimum wage) I know its difficult but, let's have some serious facts rather than crossed fingers.'" Are you struggling with reading or are you being deliberately obtuse? I never mentioned selling product anywhere - I only suggested alternatives to EU sourced products. I used Aldi/Lidl as an example of where consumers are more than willing to accept a cheaper alternative i.e. create demand through pricing product attractively. What do you think is going to happen if EU product increases in price - demand will drop off as consumers seek out cheaper options. What do you think the EU producers response will be to falling demand - do nothing or reduce their prices? I appreciate the blindingly obvious is difficult when your views are so entrenched but this will be the reality - consumers aren't lemmings they will react negatively to increased costs as Aldi/Lidl's competitors have discovered.

Unlike the belief of rabid right wing ideologues, we don't live in a perfect market. The EU has a huge structural advantage because they are near so we can get products quickly and, in a lot of cases, because they have the skills to produce goods to a higher standard than elsewhere. For a lot of markets that combination is critical and whilst the latter can be overcome by competitors the former simply cannot.

Since many or even most UK-produced goods rely on at least some raw materials which are imported the EU is the natural place to source them from. Most businesses simply can't wait for things to arrive by sea from China and can't cope with the cost of airfreighting them.

This discussion is an attempt, without much success, to shoehorn ideological beliefs to match the unfortunate facts of international trade.

I think you are correct the ideology that nothing will change except cost is flawed - humans are pretty imaginative and adaptable and have shown this over the ages. It is just a myth put forward by remainers such as you with no evidence to support that theory.

It would be difficult to see how raw material can be more expensive than the impact of the falling pound have been on imports - yet businesses have still continued producing and inflation has got out of hand. Its just doom-mongering from a bitter set of left-leaning individuals like yourself who think they know better than everyone else and who'se view of democracy is that it is OK as long as the vote goes their way.

Trading: the action or activity of BUYING and goods and services.

Regarding the EU competing for their market share, of course they will, which, apart from their geographic proximity to the UK, is the main reason for our trade.

As for entrenched views, I think that you are wrong.

The "Leave" vote was for 2 or 3 main reasons, Immigration being top of the list.
Personally I would put the coutry's prosperity above immigration, I dont think this is an "entrenched" view, more common sense, although I do accept that "free movement" was getting out of control.
However, on immigration, we still come back to the "controlled" immigration (from outside the EU) was pretty much equal to the numbers coming from The EU, making a mockery of the immigration argument

The "entrenched" views seem to be mainly from the right wing brigade, desperate to "take control", regardless of the effect that this will have on the rest of us.

Apart from the absolute spewed out during the referendum, we are still waiting to hear what REAL benefits there will be, when we retreat to our small politically fractured island and the silence has been deafening.
Just would, could, might and maybe. As I said crossed fingers and blind faith, not a sensible plan or strategy among any of you and certainly not from our esteemed government.

Are we heading for a no deal ?

So much talk about the need to speed things up and The Cabinet still not in agreement (which is unbelievable).
A no deal would allow The Tories (and everyone else) to blame those nasty EU negotiators and appease the Brexitiers who are just desperate to leave (regardless of the cost ).

It's quite staggering that "we" still haven't got a plan than is close to being acceptable.
Mrs May still with her fingers crossed and putting party before country, shame on her.

The EU only agree ever agree things at the last minute when the pressure is on. Government should just carry on doing nothing until the EU blinks at the prospect of a do ca.led 'no deal.' Fractures are developing on the 27 and will become huge if we hold our nerve.

I know that the EU are finally doing something about mass migration (although this is already at far lower levels than a few years ago) but the The Cabinet is far more fractured than the other EU members and which ever direction Mrs May chooses to lean will destroy her own government, which probably explains why she wont commit us to anything.

We just need Noel Edmonds to sort a Deal or No Deal, Mr Blobby already sat on the opposition bench

I've been reading Tony Benn's diaries from 2001 to 2007. I'm not much of a Benn fan, but he covers the Tory leadership election in 2005 and describes Cameron as "shallow" and by god he was right. The useless Cameron knew that the anti EU press had been poisoning public opinion drop by drop over 25 years. He comes to power, and introduces swingeingly unnecessary austerity. He then goes to the country saying he would get better terms from the EU and put it to a referendum, in order to buy the silence of the loonies in his party. They remained silent ok, because they knew there were no better terms available. We had the best deal of any of the EU members. So he comes back empty handed, and still holds the referendum, which of course he loses. It should be obvious why he lost. The places that voted in large number for leave were the very places that have been hardest his by his government's policies. He resigns and the even more spineless Theresa is elected. Meanwhile back at the ranch Labour elect a leader who hasn't a clue what to do about Brexit.
So what's the answer kiddies? Another vote is the answer, because this is too big for a simple majority. Corbyn should get his act together and assemble the majority in parliament that exists for this course of action. Obviously Dominic Grieve was lacking in the cojones to go all the way.
Unless we step back from the brink the ordinary every day people of this country are going to suffer a horrendous ten years. Does anyone in their right mind think the likes of Aaron Banks, or James Dyson, or Rupert Murdoch, or William Rees Mogg or Nigel Lawson have the interests of the British worker at heart?

It's going to be interesting. Can't kick the can any further down the road now.

it seems to be lost in the long grass!

David Davies (Brexit Secretary) resigned, Tories in utter disarray, what chance of a deal now ??
I'm not sure that we have ever seen such inept leadership in government and certainly not on such an important issue.

Our @friends@ in the EU mist be absolutely ing themselves at just how poor we are.

The government started with no plan for Brexit and just a few months short of the big day, they are getting more and more disjointed.

they didn't think they needed a plan, all sane people wanted to remain, only the racist over 60's voted leave.

I agree, it is an utter shambles and May has proven she couldn't lead a dog, let alone a country.

I wonder how much Chequers would bring on the open market, because it's of zero value to the country.

I have, for a long time, been a conservative, but now I just think all politics is the preserve of self serving individuals.

UK politics is in a real mess. There is a golden opportunity for someone to step forward and make themselves the hero, but as you said, the self-serving attitude within will be weighing up the potential losses of this undertaking. They may single-handedly save the country, but on the other hand they may lose their personal perks. It's a tough one.

We need a peaceful equivalent of Guido Fawkes, kick them all out and get REAL people into power, but it will never happen, tbe system is corrupt, has been for centuries.