Royal Mail in EU referendum

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 10 Jun 2016, 14:54

There is much talk of "taking control of our borders" but very little talk of what exactly that means, how it will be achieved and how it will be paid for? What if Scotland or Wales decide to go down a different route?, does anybody know how much it would cost to control the Scotland/ England border or even if it's feasible?

A lot of populist rhetoric but not a great deal of thinking things through. Taking control of "our" borders is nothing more than a sound bite without a plan to follow through and it's blatantly obvious Boris Johnson and his crew haven't a clue how any of this would work in practice.

Tman · Post by **Tman** » 10 Jun 2016, 15:16

I reckon you understand the meaning of the term "taking control of the borders" perfectly well.
It worked well enough for many years; everyone arriving is checked and no "foreign nationals" are given the automatic right to settlement with no questions asked. It also seems to work well enough for the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel and the rest, but strangely "Leavers" are looked at askance if it's suggested as a solution or eventual result of unfettered immigration to the UK, as if it's some sort of devil's work.
Shame the EU referendum is imminent; had it been in 12 months or so time with more reports of inflatables arriving on the beaches of the South Coast, terrorist atrocities in Europe, another set of New Years Eve groping parties in Cologne, Hamburg, Dresden, Liepzig, Copenhagen etc and a couple more Muslim grooming ring trials and the Leave vote could have been a landslide..

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 10 Jun 2016, 15:25

All you had to say was I don't know.

Post by **POSTMAN** » 10 Jun 2016, 15:48

fishtank wrote:All you had to say was I don't know.

He does know tho, he posted the answer.

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 10 Jun 2016, 16:07

POSTMAN wrote:
fishtank wrote:All you had to say was I don't know.
He does know tho, he posted the answer.

It worked a long time ago ( under completely different circumstances ) and other countries do it ( badly and at great expense to the taxpayer)?

And some shite about wishing some more bad s**t had happened so he leave the EU.

Sorry Susan, I asked if anybody had thought it through.

Tman · Post by **Tman** » 10 Jun 2016, 16:17

Why, were the borders different years ago? Why does it work "badly and expensively"? in other countries?
What's to think through?

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 10 Jun 2016, 16:37

There was no free movement of labour through Europe "years ago", if someone from Eastern Europe wanted to get to the UK they had to get through a few countries first, now they can just jump on a train, us leaving won't stop that. The number of applications to work and the number of illegal immigrants will be multiple times higher than "years ago".

The countries you mention have massive problems both with "controlling their borders" and dealing with illegal immigration.

What's to think through?
Cost and logistics and is it going to be like trying to nail jelly to the wall.
I've yet to see any genuine discussion about the feasibility of the rather trite comment " taking back control".

Tman · Post by **Tman** » 10 Jun 2016, 17:57

The countries you mention have massive problems both with "controlling their borders" and dealing with illegal immigration.

You're missing the point. As you say, Western (or Westernised) countries do have problems with illegal immigration, and many spend considerable sums of money combating it, but that's a very different thing from allowing foreign nationals to settle here by right.
I find it bizarre that anyone would argue that simple background or criminal record checks on new arrivals wouldn't be desirable, and if you accept that, then you must accept the need for border controls in some shape or form.
Try pitching up in the US and saying "no problem mate, I've just arrived from Canada by train so of course you'll let me stay now, won't you?" and take a note of the response you'll get. The Northern border of the US with Canada is notoriously "porous" and hard to police, but Canadians (and others coming through this route) have no right to US settlement, and of course the US (among others) will still refuse entry to some convicted criminals whether their convictions are spent or not. The US clearly can and does pick and choose who it wants, and the scale of illegal immigration is irrelevant to that principle.
But according to you, "we" won't be able to stop the flow of Eastern Europeans etc "because they came by train"? Really?

Many trains trips world-wide cross international borders and they seem to have no problem checking passengers' right to entry.
Work applications may well be higher, but we seem to have no trouble telling people from the Indian sub-continent that they are refused entry as they don't have enough points, so if it's seen as an acceptable way to deal with Asian potential immigrants then why not for those from Poland or wherever?
If anyone hasn't thought this one through, it would appear to be you.

Post by **dvbuk55** » 10 Jun 2016, 18:22

"It's difficult and expensive to maintain the borders" and the alternative is what? A never ending stream of immigrants of whatever particular persuasion year in year out until such time as there is literally no room and the infrastructure can no longer be maintained. I for one do not buy in to the oft repeated phrase that these people participate and put more in to the system than they take out.

simply_the_best · Post by **simply_the_best** » 10 Jun 2016, 22:05

fishtank wrote:There is much talk of "taking control of our borders" but very little talk of what exactly that means, how it will be achieved and how it will be paid for? What if Scotland or Wales decide to go down a different route?, does anybody know how much it would cost to control the Scotland/ England border or even if it's feasible?

A lot of populist rhetoric but not a great deal of thinking things through. Taking control of "our" borders is nothing more than a sound bite without a plan to follow through and it's blatantly obvious Boris Johnson and his crew haven't a clue how any of this would work in practice.

It's a UK vote, doesn't matter a jot how Scotland or Wales or NI vote.

If it's Leave we all leave, Remain then we all remain.

I'd laugh my socks off if the UK voted to Remain but Scotland actually voted to Leave and watch the horrible little s**t and her awful party that is ruining Scotland spin that one!!!

mancpat · Post by **mancpat** » 10 Jun 2016, 22:23

motherhubbard wrote:Most bookies are offering odds of 1/6 for Britain to remain within the EU.
The bookies are rarely wrong.

They were wrong at the last election. They had all sorts of coalitions as favourite's. Outright tory win was pretry big odds.

cpsteve · Post by **cpsteve** » 11 Jun 2016, 20:04

mancpat wrote:
motherhubbard wrote:Most bookies are offering odds of 1/6 for Britain to remain within the EU.
The bookies are rarely wrong.

They were wrong at the last election. They had all sorts of coalitions as favourite's. Outright tory win was pretry big odds.

Its very close odds for a two horse race 4/11 stay 9/4 leave.

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 11 Jun 2016, 20:10

cpsteve wrote:
mancpat wrote:
motherhubbard wrote:Most bookies are offering odds of 1/6 for Britain to remain within the EU.
The bookies are rarely wrong.

They were wrong at the last election. They had all sorts of coalitions as favourite's. Outright tory win was pretry big odds.
Its very close odds for a two horse race 4/11 stay 9/4 leave.

Ladbrookes live odds show