Controlling migration

The present government is pledged to cut net migration to tens of thousands. This requires something like a two thirds cut in current levels. Vote Leave argued for slower rates of inward migration than now, with a fair system offering the same restrictions on EU migrants as the rest of the world.

Yesterday in the Commons the Opposition proposed a motion to reassure all EU citizens living in the UK but from another EU country that they may stay after Brexit. Vote Leave asked for such an assurance. It is implied by international law. The UK would be rightly scandalised and seeking to mobilise international law and world opinion if one of the other EU states threatened UK people legally settled in their country.

I explained to the whips that I would not help vote down the Opposition motion, and wanted the Home Secretary to accept it. For some unknown reason she seemed to think the future of EU residents in the UK could be a matter for negotation. Parliament duly approved the Labour motion, so I presume she will now have to change her policy.

Meanwhile I have also proposed that she makes a statement telling EU migrants arriving post the referendum vote that we are introducing a new system which they will need to comply with as soon as it is in place. The Home Secretary needs to make clear that we cannot accommodate a rush of people wanting to gain citizen rights, so she needs to get on with changing the law as soon as possible and defining transitional arrangements to give us reassurances.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

118 Comments

  1. Iain Gill
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 5:21 am | Permalink

    Yep the coaches arriving from states still flying mig jets but carrying EU passports will only get even larger in volume at any hint of a cut off date. We should just stop them now. Although we are still printing uncapped intra company transfer visas and indefinite leave visas for cheap Indian workers to undercut British workers so it’s not just the EU

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 8, 2016 at 7:50 am | Permalink

      There has to be a cut-off date, and among others Gisela Stuart proposed the day of the referendum vote to leave the EU. Thus a well-behaved EU citizen ordinarily resident in the UK on June 23rd would retain all the rights he had on that date. I’m not sure that I agree he should keep ALL the rights, because for a start I believe that as a matter of principle only UK citizens should be allowed to vote in any public election or referendum in the UK. But in any case as time goes on without the government making any definitive statement that this will be the case it will become increasingly retroactive to use that date, which is not good. However saying that this is all conditional on the good behaviour of politicians in the other EU member states is even worse, it is unreasonable and unjust.

  2. Mark B
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 5:26 am | Permalink

    Good morning.

    No one begrudges someone willing to uproot, move, live, learn the language, work and integrate. What people do not like, is large numbers of people coming in such a short space of time and changing their communities beyond all recognition. This is what I have often refereed to as, MASS Immigration.

    Whilst we are still members of the EU we are bound by its laws and the rules of the EEA. One of the ‘Four Freedoms’ of the EEA is the free movement of people. So I suspect that any law / system parliament wishes to bring in to control migrant numbers, can only be applied to non-EEA member countries. Because if it did, I think the EU Commission will take the UK to the ECJ.

    The rule regarding free movement of people needs to be renegotiated. It is time the EU and other EEA members were persuaded to adopt some sort of points system. But I accept that this is very unlikely to happen.

    What does need to happen, is that the government need to understand and implement the current rules. Do that and you will be able to reduce them.

    Another way to reduce immigration, is to address the ‘Pull Factors’ with regard to immigration. If the EU was to address the chronic levels of unemployment in Eurozone countries then I think we would see less people fleeing economic meltdown. Another one, curiously, is to reduce the value of the pound. If the pound was worth less or the same as the Euro, fewer people would find working in the UK as attractive.

  3. Lifelogic
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 5:36 am | Permalink

    All sensible and fairly obvious stuff.

    So why is Theresa May resisting it?

    Looking at the list of people who have declared support for Mrs May it seem to contain so much of what is wrong with politics and the current Conservative party. Essentially no nation “Tories”, EU enthusiasts, anti democratic remainers, purveyors of climate alarmism, career politicians of the worst type, purveyors of fake “equality” laws, BBC think dopes essentially in favour of ever bigger government, ever more taxes and ever more regulation of everything.

  4. Mick
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 5:40 am | Permalink

    Anybody from the eu pre 23rd June have a right to stay only if they have been here 5yrs or more the rest will be assets to see if they are needed, anybody coming after 23rd June no chance but should be assets if needed, we are full it’s about time these do gooder remainers excepted that, and if they love the eu that much there are plenty of cars planes ferrys that would be willing to take you to main land Europe so Bye Bye you won’t be missed

  5. stred
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 5:41 am | Permalink

    A very good move to correct another blunder and do something sensible to head off a rush during the long delay the unwilling Brexit team have planned, while they hope for an excuse to reverse it. Perhaps this sort of move by the Leadsom supporters is the sort of unwelcome democratic stuff that Nick Boles meant when he was teaxting May supporters to tactically vte Gove. It makes me wonder whether the whole Boricide was planned from the start. How can genuine Leavers stand the stench?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/06/michael-gove-ally-urges-theresa-may-supporters-to-back-him-and-k/

    I see from LLs post about Mme Royal’s interview that she is almost paid as much as Carney, probably as is the unelected ‘UK will be completely killed’ – not half- Mr Mucron. Charles the Green likes her though. Kiss Kiss at the Paris Greenwash event.

  6. Al
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 5:47 am | Permalink

    Thank you. No matter whether it is a good negotiating tactic, keeping millions of people uncertain about their immediate future is a dreadful thing to do. I think many party members with European friends and colleagues in the UK can tell you how stressful this is for them. It would be very hard to support anyone who deliberately made it worse, Home Secretary or not.

  7. Caterpillar
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 5:55 am | Permalink

    “the same restrictions on …” I think this is where Mrs May is missing her negotiating power, it would still be possible to negotiate for EU to be treated a little differently to the rest of the world in exchange for free market access e.g. If they are earning a multiplier of minimum wage (but then this could be built into a points system).

    Yes transitional arrangements need to be made and made clear e.g. a cut off date of 23rd June 2015 or, charitably, 30th June.

    (Need to get new PM in place ASAP, September is too long and adding to these confusions).

  8. stred
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 5:56 am | Permalink

    Note. Mr Boles will ‘sleep easy’ if Mrs May is elected and that Gove is willing to take it for 2 months – in order to facilitate the election of a Remainic PM? You couldn’t make this stuff up.

    Is it possible for Constituency Assns to clear out these coniving B……s?

    • bluedog
      Posted July 7, 2016 at 11:35 pm | Permalink

      Boles seemed equally concerned about attitudes to ‘modern values’ while carefully avoiding an explanation of what that coded remark really meant.

      • stred
        Posted July 8, 2016 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

        As a ‘dinosaur’ I have been puzzling all day about what modern values Mr Boles is worried that old leavers and conservative association codgers have that he doesn’t. I came across an article in which, as skills minister, he is keen to abolish courses in self tanning, marzipan modelling and other odd subjects. Perhaps older Tories are into this sort of fad and he suspects that Mrs Leadsom has a healthy look about her. I had no idea that this sort of thing went on and believed that it was necessary to involve the sun. It may explain the number of orange looking people in Essex, where I stay, as there has been little sunshine recently.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2016/07/08/mickey-mouse-courses-scrapped-in-major-government-reform/

  9. Roy Grainger
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 5:59 am | Permalink

    “For some unknown reason she seemed to think the future of EU residents in the UK could be a matter for negotation.”

    Because then when she runs the second referendum in 2 years time without any agreement with the EU on this matter more people will vote against Brexit ?

    Cameron has also supported her in her view incidentally, it is plainly government policy. You are right that her apparent worry about mass immigration from the EU now to get in before Brexit could be simply countered by saying this pledge applies only to EU citizens who were resident before the day of the vote – easy to check via NI numbers etc.

  10. Jerry
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 6:04 am | Permalink

    Surely the first duty of the governbment is to look after UK citizens, both here at home and abroad, that is why it is correct that they can not give at this stage the asymmetrical assurances the opposition and now many flip-flopping Brexitiers want.

    It is not the issue of legally settled migrants per se that is the problem, it is their legal status, for example there are many UK expats migrants living and settled in Spain who are there quite legally but who are not fully integrated (unlike similar people in the UK, due to our welfare and health services), would it really be acceptable that a migrant from Spain living here in the UK has full access to the NHS whilst a migrant from the UK living in Spain might have to take out private health care insurance rather than just present their ID and S1 (or what ever) forms?

    • Caterpillar
      Posted July 7, 2016 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

      Jerry, yes here is a duty of government, but taking a tit-for-tat approach with the EU27, which we hope will still be an ally and partner in the future, does seem inappropriate. If the EU27 wish show themselves up in the world then obviously the UK has to work to look after its citizens, but it should not stoop to the low levels that Mrs May is assuming of the EU27. If the UK is decent on current residents, I suspect the EU27 will be (I trust that prior to the referendum UK citizens will have registered that residence in EU countries if they have one recently moved).

      • Jerry
        Posted July 8, 2016 at 7:36 am | Permalink

        @Caterpillar; No one is taking a tit-for-tat approach, well at least not yet, simply because no one has started negotiating – and will not until someone in the UK dares to trigger A50!

    • a-tracy
      Posted July 8, 2016 at 7:41 am | Permalink

      Jerry, I read that the Health Service in Spain bill the UK anyway for migrants from the UK using their health services? As do Poland and the others, there were millions of pounds billed to us and we bill hardly anything because our administration is not there, they should contract it out, give the contractor a % of whatever they charge and then we’re on level footing.

      • Jerry
        Posted July 9, 2016 at 8:40 am | Permalink

        @a-tracy; Spain charging the NHS via the S1 form etc. is one thing but if those UK expats living in Spain find them faced with either paying the Spanish health service direct or for medical insurance to obtain health cover then some will no doubt decide to either return to the UK to live or visit and by way of being here use the NHS (for which they have previously paid into), putting even greater stress on the actual infrastructure and front line staff, not the finances.

        • a-tracy
          Posted July 10, 2016 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

          I can’t comment without knowing all the facts Jerry, but it would be interesting to know how many UK residents there are a) working in Spain, b) retired in Spain c) claiming benefits in Spain compared with the number of Spanish people doing the same in the UK.

          We must relook how we train UK nurses and ensure that all immigrant nurses are trained to the same level as we expect our UK medical staff. We will have to train more and perhaps charging World NHS users alone will pay for that, it must be investigated.

          Who knows what new bright spark idea will come about following this period of massive change, that’s when people are usually the most enterprising and not just stuck with a failing status quo as we are now with people released just two days after a serious big operation and left to fend for themselves.

          You could just constantly look on the dark side of everything Jerry, but some people are optimistic thank goodness and will look for solutions instead of just flapping around.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 8, 2016 at 8:12 am | Permalink

      “many flip-flopping Brexitiers”

      I can’t say how many Brexitiers have flip-flopped on this. Many of us were disgusted that as part of its referendum campaign the government called into question the future status of foreign EU citizens already resident in our country – which of course will be entirely a matter for domestic policy and legislation, we do not have to wait for other governments to agree with us that they can stay in our country – as well as the future status of UK citizens elsewhere in the EU, and we said so at the time. For example JR repeatedly said it on this blog. On the other hand there have always been some people who wanted to leave the EU and who did not want to adopt what they saw as an over-generous policy to foreign EU citizens who are already here, and some of them also said that at the time. I’ve seen no evidence that large numbers have flipped from one view to the other.

      • Jerry
        Posted July 9, 2016 at 8:53 am | Permalink

        @Denis Cooper; Of course people wanting Brexit were calling into question the status of such people, otherwise why even make freedom of movement an issue, never mind Brexit its self – a country can not stop ceding to external rule with out doing so.

        The problem with so many wanting Brexit is that they developed tunnel vision, and still have it to so degree, whilst forgoing those rules about unintended consequentness and for every action there is a reaction – what @Caterpillar calls “tit-for-tat”.

  11. Lifelogic
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 6:06 am | Permalink

    A performance worthy of an Oscar from Blair yesterday, aided by his dire side kick Alastair Campbell, but nothing will change the facts. It was an illegal, pointless and hugely counter productive war, entered into on a deliberate deception with appalling post war planning. This was all very clear at the time as Robin Cook and many others pointed out.

    The very phrase “weapons of mass destruction” is clearly chosen to be vague, frightening and a clear deception. It seems Blair claim that he did not even know or even ask what these “weapons of mass destruction” actually where.

    • Iain Gill
      Posted July 7, 2016 at 8:33 pm | Permalink

      Yes it amazes me he has not had similar scrutiny over he other large mess ups, springing to mind off the top of my head the waste of over 5 billion quid on, what was obvious to me would never work as he envisaged it, when it was a twinkle in his eye, the failed NHS IT fiasco. None of our glorious leaders have been held to account for that.

      • stred
        Posted July 8, 2016 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

        Selling the British nuclear industry. Lumbering the NHSand Education with expensive PFIs. Giving away part of Mrs T’s rebate. Not applying the delay in migration from E.Europe. ……

        • Lifelogic
          Posted July 10, 2016 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

          Indeed the list is long.

  12. Denis Cooper
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 6:08 am | Permalink

    Well, she won’t have to change her policy because only a third of MPs voted against it.

    In Division 36 here:

    https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-07-06/debates/16070648000001/EUNationalsInTheUK

    “That this House notes that there are approximately three million nationals of other EU member states living in the UK; further notes that many more UK nationals are related to nationals of other EU member states; rejects the view that these men, women and children should be used as bargaining chips in negotiations on the UK’s exit from the EU; and calls on the Government to commit with urgency to giving EU nationals currently living in the UK the right to remain.”

    only 243 MPs voted for the motion, with 2 voting against.

    In other words, about two thirds of MPs did not vote for the government to desist from using EU citizens settled in this country as bargaining chips in negotiations with other EU member state governments, and if necessary that silent majority of MPs could be called upon, and whipped, to vote in favour of a continuation of that vile policy.

    This is hardly reassuring for blameless people who simply used the rights granted by our government and Parliament to settle here, nor does it convey the impression that having been allowed to come under that legal regime they would now be welcome to stay.

    Presumably the May/Hammond/Letwin/Brokenshire theory is that if they fear enough for their future position here then they will put pressure on the governments of their home countries to do the decent thing with respect to UK citizens in those countries, after due negotiations, whereupon some years down the line the UK government will finally be able to do the decent thing with respect to them.

    Is this policy intended to drive enough of them away that new Prime Minister May can then claim to have reduced net immigration?

    reply Not so The government had to advise Conservative MPs not to oppose the motion because they knew many of us supported it and would not vote it down. Having persuaded The government not to try to vote it down we then all abstained.

    • stred
      Posted July 8, 2016 at 8:18 am | Permalink

      Who were the 2 MPs?

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 8, 2016 at 8:22 am | Permalink

      But it’s hardly a resounding reassurance when two thirds of MPs remain silent and do not attach themselves to it. I suppose if I was an EU immigrant worrying about my future in this country I would be reassured when I was told that MPs had voted almost unanimously to allow me to stay, until somebody pointed out that two thirds of them had chosen to express no opinion.

  13. Richard1
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 6:09 am | Permalink

    What on Earth is Theresa May thinking with this silly and unfair idea of using EU citizens as a bargaining chip? If we tell c. 3m people that their future here is uncertain what is that going to do for confidence? What are their employees supposed to think? It is idiotic as well as immoral. Meanwhile Andrea Ledsom seems to me unfortunately far too lighweight to be PM. Is Ken Clarke right that Gove would start wars, Blair style? If so we can’t have him either, but assuming that is nonsense he seems to be the best candidate.

    • Richard1
      Posted July 7, 2016 at 6:20 am | Permalink

      I meant employers. Mrs May’s idea is appalling for economic confidence as well as wrong in principle.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted July 7, 2016 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

        Indeed (idiotic as well as immoral it certainly is). But then Mrs May did only study Geography at Oxford, so perhaps spotting the bleeding obvious is not really her strength?

        She did not even seem to understand that Schengen did not give us control of out borders and kept misinforming the voters that it did to con them into voting remain – and she is & was the Home Secretary so might have been expected to know.

      • Al
        Posted July 8, 2016 at 12:53 am | Permalink

        You would be right about both employers and employees. I know more than a few from overseas who came to London to start their tech firms because the infrastructure is better, pay UK taxes, and hired UK workers. Employees of these firms do not need to worry about losing their jobs as their boss is being used as a bargaining chip.

        Threatening to deport people who are contributing is not going to help the economy.

  14. Tony Hart
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 6:21 am | Permalink

    Please would you look into just why the Treasury, Business and Education ministries refused to accept the Home Secretary’s proposal to make foreign students (non EU) apply for work permits. How might HMG reduce non-EU immigration to tens of thousands, if it allows all students just to remain.

  15. John Bracewell
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 6:23 am | Permalink

    The Remain side’s reluctance to give EU citizens living in the UK the reassurance they seek about staying here shows 2 things:
    They are callous in using peoples’ lives as bargaining chips.
    They show no faith in the people (or at least the EU countries’ governments) that having set the example of letting people stay in the UK, that the EU would not do the same. Especially when in comparison the wealth or skills level, depending on whether pensioners or workers, is probably on average greater for the UK citizens abroad than EU citizens resident here, thus making them a more valuable asset. An indictment on those people in the EU with which the Remain side wanted us to throw in our lot for decades.

  16. Cheshire Girl
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 6:26 am | Permalink

    I must admit that if Theresa May becomes Prime Minister, I’m not hopeful that migration will be cut much. The figures for the last two years do not look promising. The Government will have to get a grip on migration from outside the EU, which is something we could do something about. A lot has been said, but very little actually done. Speeches are well and good, but it is about time that there was some action!

    • Iain Gill
      Posted July 7, 2016 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

      She has been told repeatedly that immigration that this country has complete control over is out of control, intra company transfer visas being abused on an industrial scale by the big outsourcers for one. But she failed to do anything at all about that. So I don’t see why she would do anything about EU immigration either. We will be subjected to the usual lies and spin while they do completely the opposite in practise, just like they have since Cameron was first PM. Just like Blair “rubbing our noses in diversity” and driving wages down for Brits, and many Brits displaced from the workforce.

    • turboterrier
      Posted July 7, 2016 at 10:16 pm | Permalink

      Cheshire girl.

      Too true. My wife has just come back from Worthing on the South Coast and it was hard for her to meet a local who was happy with the situation regarding too many people all cutting the throats of each other trying to earn a living.

      It may be a good idea if may actually walked the talk regarding her failure to control immigration.

  17. Antisthenes
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 6:27 am | Permalink

    Existing EU residence should be safe to remain and new ones after the referendum vote should be subject to the law as decided by parliament after the Brexit. A rather sensible approach to the problem I would think. It does not fill me with confidence if Theresa May does become our next PM as she did not already decided on that approach. Maybe she believes that by doing it unilaterally it is a trump card thrown away as the EU may decide to expel UK citizens from the continent. In that unlikely event then parliament can always reverse it’s position. If it so desired but I doubt that it would.

    I must declare an interest as my son in law is French. However by virtue of him being married to a UK national I do believe he is safe in any event.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 8, 2016 at 8:31 am | Permalink

      One should be able to say with confidence “Of course he is safe”, just as some of us told the Polish barmaid at our watering hole that after ten years here and with a son at school of course she and her family were safe. It’s pretty evil that thanks to some of our politicians that is now not the case. And it’s notable that the politicians who have created this uncertainty were in the Remain camp, not the Leave camp.

  18. Mike Stallard
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 6:32 am | Permalink

    Thank you so much for this post.
    I am embroiled in research on it at the moment for the people who I know at our Church. They are worried and, of course, lots of rumours must be circulating.
    Many of them are now deeply embedded (with English children having been through the school system).
    I shall go through this post this evening with them.

  19. Nig l
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 6:35 am | Permalink

    Yes makes sense, however practically do you really believe the Home Office has the systems and staffing levels to monitor all those people who come in and then presumably contact them, assess them and if they fail, send them back? They have not proved particularly efficient with the illegal people here already.

    Maybe I am missing detail from your proposal.

  20. Brexit Facts4EU.org
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 6:37 am | Permalink

    Well said Dr Redwood. Delighted you took a principled stand on this important matter.

    It’s somewhat surprising that the Leave camp has been criticised for the last two weeks with unpleasant comments from Remainers about the immigration question, and yet it’s the Remain side who seek to prevent a compassionate and proportionate response to the reassurance of existing EU migrants.

    It seems likely that the majority of Conservative Party members, who will be voting for or against Mrs May in some weeks’ time, will support your and Andrea Leadsom’s position and not Mrs May’s.

    Best wishes, the Facts4EU.org team
    http://facts4eu.org/news.shtml

    • Anonymous
      Posted July 8, 2016 at 5:38 am | Permalink

      Facts4EU – Thanks for the invaluable resource in the run-up to the referendum. It offered great clarity at a time of confusion.

      The migrant issue has often been used by the pro EU side spitefully. The people are quite clear that they are not against immigration but that they don’t want high levels of low skilled migration and so the pro EU Government (to pretend they were getting numbers down) stopped the very thing the people wanted by clamping down on skilled and monied non EU citizens and might as well have said ‘well you asked for it’ for good measure !

      A similar thing happened during austerity. Important frontline services were cut when councils were told to economise. They didn’t cut diversity co-ordinators etc. Street cleaning and public toilets reduced ? Well you asked for it !

    • stred
      Posted July 8, 2016 at 8:39 am | Permalink

      Thanks for showing the Civil Service code of conduct, which these politicised incompetents have violated. Not only should they be demoted to the paperclip distribution department but also lose their knighthoods. Or perhaps be re-knighted to the Grand Order of Bunglers.

  21. Pete
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 6:44 am | Permalink

    The present government has utterly failed to control immigration, largely due to the front runner in the leadership contest. We can expect no improvement whilst the same inadequate people are in government. Brexit demands a complete shake up in the cabinet and the removal if proven failure.

  22. Dioclese
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 6:45 am | Permalink

    You are absolutely right. I cannot understand why Theresa May is dragging her feet on this issue. Let’s hope there are lots of expat party members who will remember this in the final ballot…

  23. Ian B
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 6:46 am | Permalink

    I remain appalled that the government did not allow the Civil Service to do any preparation for a Leave vote and the government itself made no contingency policies. There should have been interim policies ready to put into action in the event of the vote not going the way they desired. This severely tarnishes the prospects of senior members of this government who wish to be the next leader of our nation.

    No Leaver that I know personally expected ordinary EU citizens to be used as pawns for political leverage and threatened with being roughly booted out of the country. It was a vote for the future, not some retroactive “cleansing”.

    All this only confirms to me that we need fresh thinking at Number 10 and fresh faces around the Cabinet table. If today we see the rumoured tactical voting occurring in a cynical move to ensure that change means no change, it will be another bad day for the reputation of a political class which is already at an all-time low.

  24. Ian Wragg
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 6:55 am | Permalink

    There’s so much to say on this subject.
    How about stopping issuing UK passports for non UK citizens temporarily until we know the deal.
    What about legislation to stop local authorities giving social housing to foreigners.
    What makes you think May will actually do anything as she’s failed to reduce non EU migration or make sure students leave at the end of their course.
    You can pass as much legislation as you like which is useless if not enforced.

    • stred
      Posted July 8, 2016 at 8:52 am | Permalink

      As part of her campaign, Mrs Leadsom should say she will put a US style counting system in and a strict registry of addresses with check- ins to police stations for students and temporary workers. Also point out that May failed totally to do so and control non-EU migration. No NI cards should be issued without verification.

  25. Narrow Shoulders
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 6:55 am | Permalink

    Correct response Mr Redwood. Those here and regularly working on 23rd June should be able to stay albeit only with leave to remain while in the country for 48 weeks out of 52 (like most other workers with 4 weeks holiday).

    Anyone arriving after June 23 arrived knowing the circumstances and so should be subject to new arrangements.

  26. oldtimer
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 7:04 am | Permalink

    This sounds sensible to me. I did not understand the Home Secretary’s position on legal migrants already living and working here. Clips of her, that have appeared on the net (Guido Fawkes), trying to stay awake during the PM’ statement yesterday revealed that she was looking very tired. Perhaps all politicians now need a good night’s sleep.

  27. bluedog
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 7:09 am | Permalink

    There’s only one question regarding Mrs May. In the unfortunate event that she emerges as PM, can she be trusted to implement Brexit? Or is she just a Euro-mole working to another agenda? Her non-committal stance during the Brexit campaign tells us she is not a conviction-politician; at best a pragmatist, at worst an opportunist. By her fruits we will know her.

  28. Nigel
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 7:13 am | Permalink

    not a good way for her to encourage party members to support her leadership challenge.

  29. The Prangwizard
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 7:14 am | Permalink

    This is Kenneth Clarke’s “bloody difficult woman”. With the example of her attitude here it seems she will a bloody awful Prime Minister.

  30. Denis Cooper
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 7:14 am | Permalink

    The Boles email is hilarious:

    “What if Theresa stumbles? Are we really confident that the membership won’t vote for a fresh face who shares their attitudes about much of modern life?”

    Can’t have that, can we.

    • stred
      Posted July 8, 2016 at 8:58 am | Permalink

      New word for the dictionary.- Boles Up. An unintended and damaging exposure of intention or attitude which insults the adversary.

  31. Bob
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 7:19 am | Permalink

    BBC Today program on R4 seems to have joined Nick Boles campaign to block Andrea Leadsom from going through to the final ballot today, casting various aspersion over her suitability, and even referring to Ken Clarke’s accidentally on purpose “Candid Camera” skit on Sky TV.

    Unsurprisingly, they never mentioned the less than flattering Telegraph article about Theresa May that was withdrawn under pressure from the Tory Party.

  32. JoeSoap
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 7:21 am | Permalink

    “Everybody needs good neighbours”

  33. agricola
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 7:31 am | Permalink

    Always bare in mind that our Home Secretary is a person who would rather that Leave had not succeeded in the referendum. Most important when it comes to choosing a future Prime Minister. She will at best produce a diluted re-negotiation, just as Home Secretary she always aspired but rarely achieved. Like Dave, she talked the talk but failed to walk the walk. Should you need reminding, lest you get blinded by the footwear.

    1.
    She was a senior Cabinet member on the Remain side.
    2.
    She allowed Sharia Law to proliferate on her watch to the detriment of many Muslim women. Not to mention the insanity of having a third legal system within the UK.
    3.
    She failed miserably to deport terrorists or to exile returning jihadi terrorists.
    4.
    Up until the Commons told her otherwise yesterday ,she was prepared to use the lives of EU and UK citizens as bargaining chips.
    5.
    She totally failed to control immigration from outside the EU to the extent that we now have an estimated two million illegals residing in the UK. She made no serious attempt to remove them during her tenure of office.

    As a potential PM ,I have no confidence in her desire to act in the best interests of the UK.

    • turboterrier
      Posted July 7, 2016 at 10:20 pm | Permalink

      Agricola

      Not a lot to argue with that. Well said

  34. DaveM
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 7:42 am | Permalink

    I thought the Referendum result might have burst the Westminster bubble (particularly as it was largely brought about by voters who DON’T live in London or Scotland). However, it seems to have made it thicker!

    I’ve paid taxes since I was 18, and put my life on the line several times on the orders of a government which I didn’t vote for because I believe in democracy and therefore respect the view of the majority. The EU Referendum was brought about in the most democratic way possible. Over the past 15-20 years we voted for UKIP in local and EU elections to make our views on the EU known. We voted against AV because we want to be able to hire and fire those who represent us in Parliament. (That needs to start happening pretty soon too.) More recently we voted for the Conservatives because they offered – amongst other things – a promise to significantly reduce immigration (not happened), a promise of fairness for England (also not happened IMHO), and a fair referendum on the EU.

    The Referendum wasn’t conducted fairly in my opinion, but nevertheless, against all the odds, we won. We voted to Leave the EU. That means Leave. No more Juncker, no more ECJ, no more Common Fisheries Policy, no more CAP, and most importantly no more Freedom of Movement, ie, TOTAL control over immigration. We won the Referendum legally and fairly and democratically. We didn’t have mass protests, we didn’t firebomb Polish shops or grafitti all over taxi firms who employ Romanians. We did it patiently and legally.

    I genuinely hope, Mr R, that your party doesn’t elect Theresa “Remain” May as PM so that she can get together with Angela Merkel and produce some sort of EU-lite which includes freedom of Movement, because the vast majority of voters who voted Leave did so because they were concerned about the unmanageable levels of immigration and the way it affected the communities in which they live, and which were created by their parents, grandparents and so on.

    We voted to Leave the EU. So can we leave now please? Not next year, not in 5 years’ time, now.

  35. They Work for Us?
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 8:03 am | Permalink

    Setting an immediate cut off date, tomorrow?, from which all new migrants will be assessed retrospectively, is vital to stop a last minute rush and establish that Brexit and really tough immigration controls.
    On her track record it is most unlikely that Theresa May or David Cameron will want to do anything like this.
    Foreign nationals have no absolute right to come here and be allowed to “land”. The fundamental requirement should be for a fixed term work permit or proof of the means to return home after a holiday, plus Health Insurance. The default state should be that those working here do eventually return home so we do not have to support them and any children born here in their retirement and old age.
    Above all right to remain and acquiring nationality should be decoupled from work permits and just presence in the country.
    None of this will happen because the politicians in power will care more about being told they are good “chaps” by their peers than acting to protect this overpopulated and resource stretched little island.

  36. Michael McGrath
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 8:10 am | Permalink

    Are we going completely mad? Do we really believe that France, Spain and other EU countries are going to tell British expatriates to leave? What about the American, Japanese, Australian, New Zealand nationals.? Will they have to leave, or is it only the British?

    For heavens sake, be sensible.

    Will the Spaniards throw out the 300000 tax paying, local shop supporting Brits and have another 150000 unsold houses to deal with.

    The same applies to Ireland, with around 250000 and France at around 180000.

    So let us stop saying might, could, may and all the other shivery words and concentrate on how we and our friends in Europe can build a jointly successful future where the fully independant UK can offer cooperation and support while the rest of the continent continues it’s mad flight towards the United States of Europe

  37. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 8:11 am | Permalink

    Mrs May says judge her on her record. On that basis she is unfit to be Prime Minister. A critical review of her tenure at the Home Office written by Jonathan Foreman headlined “ Theresa May is a great self-promoter, but a terrible Home Secretary ” was allegedly pulled by the Telegraph after pressure from her campaign. Does Mrs May believe that Sharia law has been good for the UK, as is sometimes reported on the internet? My view is that there can be only one system of law and that must cover everyone in the country. Why did Mrs May allegedly meet with Richard Branson this week. A man who wants to overturn the referendum result?
    Meanwhile, I feel sure that many of Mrs May’s supporters, encouraged by the likes of Nick Boles supporting Michael Gove, will attempt to gerrymander today’s result and vote for Mr Gove in order to eliminate Mrs Leadsom, whom I suspect they fear more when the constituency members vote.
    I fear that if Mrs May is elected then the Brexit vote will be effectively neutred much to the delight of most MPs and the broadcast media.

    • Al
      Posted July 8, 2016 at 1:05 am | Permalink

      At the time of writing the article “Theresa May is a great self-promoter, but a terrible Home Secretary” can still be seen in its original Telegraph form through the google cache. Google the name and hit the green arrow for the Cached version.

  38. brian
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 8:16 am | Permalink

    The government’s objective for net migration is an “ambition” rather than a “pledge”, according to the Party’s manifesto.
    The vote in the HoC was not binding on the government. We should wait and see what our EU partners will agree to. If everyone is sensible,citizens who have located to other countries will retain their rights. With elections coming up in several EU countries we cannot be sure that campaigning politicians will not propose limitations for UK citizens. We are already seeing proposals to move the “border” in Calais.

    reply The Opposition should say it is binding. The motion did it say it was advisory

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 8, 2016 at 8:55 am | Permalink

      “We should wait and see what our EU partners will agree to.”

      We should aim to do the decent thing even if the others do not.

      The paradox is that the government has said again and again that we benefit hugely from having these people here – and that was also said, repetitiously, by virtually every MP who spoke in the debate – and yet it is mooting their mass deportation if politicians in their countries of origin, over whom they have no effective control, decide not to behave with normal decency; and in the same breath our Remain politicians say that these are our lovely EU partners who should be allowed a large hand in the government of our country …

  39. Denis Cooper
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 8:31 am | Permalink

    Incidentally there were a number of provisions in the Immigration Act 1971 which dealt with this kind of problem, this is not the first time it has had to be addressed.

  40. Oliver
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 8:47 am | Permalink

    That’s an obviously sensible response.

    There seems to be a widespread acceptance amongst the “Remain” liberals that entirely unconstrained lifelong residence rights is something it is entirely OK to have retrospectively imposed on us, giving no regard to our limited land mass relative to most other rich European countries, and the fact that almost everyone in the world has English as their second language.

    Imposing your will unilaterally on others isn’t an unreasonable definition of Fascism, and I struggle to see why it isn’t widely characterised as such.

    Perhaps a first step would be for what we asked for in the alleged Cameron negotiations, and what was offered to be made public, leaked.

    This would put the inflexible, intransigent, unreasonable dogmatic attitude of both Brussels and doubtless Merkel into the public domain, and international opinion will come to recognise this more than they appear to that this “crisis” is entirely of Europe’s making.

  41. forthurst
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 8:56 am | Permalink

    As one who campaigned for Brexit under the badly organised Vote Leave brand, I can confirm that the issue of their continuing residence in our country by EU citizens was the one that they raised most often and understandably so; many had clearly settled and with firm roots. In all cases, I reassured them that Brexit would not affect their status. I clearly reckoned without the pathological ineptitude of Teresa May who clearly does not have the competance or intelligence to be an effective Home Secretary, never mind Prime Minister; if anything would decide the Brussels regime as well as the constituent national leaders to become uncooperative and punitive with trade negotiations, it is hard to think of a better one than that attempted by May. How any MP could vote for her in today’s ballot after such a reminder of her typically blundering performance, would defeat me.
    Vote Gove for WWIII; vote Leadsom for Brexit; vote May for amateur dramatics as usual.

  42. Bert Young
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 8:59 am | Permalink

    The roads are blocked , schools are full , hospitals can hardly cope , homes are very expensive and difficult to find . As the most congested country in Europe we cannot subscribe to a ” one pattern fits all ” approach . Equally Theresa is not in a position to ignore the vote of the people ; she must face up to the fact that tough action is required and it is time to put our foot down .

    Those EU migrants who are here without a job have to be sent back and all other migrants returned from whence they came . It’s no good to cry out with different sorts of humanitarian pleas ; we are overcrowded and that’s the long and short of it . Until we show a determined and forceful approach to immigration we are waving a flag of come and join the benefits club ; common sense has to prevail .

  43. fedupsoutherner
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    Can someone please explain the following to me after a conversation I had yesterday with a friend?

    She stated that EVERY piece of change in legislation regarding leaving the EU would have to go through parliament for them to say yes or no to it and that it could all be voted out. Is this correct? If this is the case then no new legislation could come in and we wouldn’t be able to leave the EU Sorry to be so vague but help would be appreciated. from someone on this.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 8, 2016 at 9:20 am | Permalink

      She is correct insofar as changes to domestic law will be necessary if/when we leave the EU, which changes to our law can only be made by Parliament. Where the Tory government has a working majority of just 16 in the Commons, which could easily disappear with rebellions and abstentions, and has only 244 Tory peers out of a total of 798 in the Lords. So nothing will be possible unless the opposition parliamentarians agree to respect the result of the referendum, which many have not yet fully accepted.

      On the other hand the service of the Article 50 notice that we intend to leave the EU would be an act performed on the international plane, not the domestic plane, and by the government, not Parliament. The question which has been raised is whether the government needs Parliament to consent to that being done or it can act using the Royal Prerogative without asking Parliament.

      Hopefully the courts will decide that it does fall within the existing scope of prerogative powers, as the government contends, so the government will then be able to put the seal on the referendum by activating Article 50, which should be done as soon as possible so that those of us who campaigned for a Leave vote can then sleep more easily.

    • stred
      Posted July 8, 2016 at 9:28 am | Permalink

      As far as I understand, we can pass a law to adopt all EU laws and regulations into British law, then be free to delete any, such as low suck Dysons, which we wish to. We can also just tell them we have left, stop paying any more money and let them argue between themselves for years. If they start playing silly b’s, we can do the same.
      If they threaten to take us to international courts, we can stop recognising them. We hold the cards and the money and are the 5th economy and a nuclear armed nation. Junker canbe junked.

  44. William Long
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 9:16 am | Permalink

    The Home Secretary’s prevarication on this matter can only be taken as an indication of how she would perform if Prime Minister. Let us hope that uncommitted Conservative MPs have the sense to ignore the emails reportedly being sent by Mr Boles urging them to support Mr Gove rather than risk letting Mrs Leadsom into the final two.

  45. Beecee
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 10:24 am | Permalink

    Mrs May comes across as being very dogmatic, not a good reference in a PM candidate.

    Those who have seen her at closer quarters may (no pun intended) know better.

  46. Mark
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 10:28 am | Permalink

    Granting indefinite (or limited) leave to remain is not the same as granting citizenship, and it is time we started making more of a distinction in this regard. We should seek to limit grants of citizenship only to those who demonstrate a proper affinity with Britain, not just those who know how to apply for benefits as per the current citizenship test.

    There is a clear need to offer more clarity to migrants, regardless of when they arrived, and those coming here in the future. For those who came before the referendum, it is obvious that they should be treated just as if we had chosen to remain in the EU. There will of course be a steady erosion in their numbers as some choose to re-emigrate to further their careers or to retire elsewhere, just as they have been doing all along. We should also be clear that a temporary absence for holiday will not count against them. However, those who emigrate for a more extended period might lose their automatic right to return, but points could be awarded for having made a positive contribution to the UK in the past.

    Those who come to work should be told that their stay after our exit is complete can continue for so long as they remain in work, with a grace period extension to allow them to make other arrangements should they lose their job. Students who come to start courses while we remain in the EU will of course continue to be entitled to student loans throughout their course – however, once their course is complete, they should be subject to the same regime applied to non EU students.

    I think we should return to the primary purpose test for would be spouses – sham marriages should not be a back door to Britain. We should also require all foreign students to depart after the end of their courses so that the student route ceases to be another back door. Lord Green estimates that alone could reduce net migration by 100,000.

  47. Nick
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 10:48 am | Permalink

    If the EU or an EU country kicks out Brits, what’s your response?

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 8, 2016 at 9:33 am | Permalink

      That would depend on whether the EU country had good cause to kick them out, but in any case we would not be picking on their blameless citizens already resident in this country and kicking them out without good cause. It could affect UK policy on the admission of their citizens in the future, but it should not affect UK policy on those already settled here.

  48. ken Moore
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

    It’s becoming clearer by the day that there is a conspiracy for no change to occur. The changes we need on the EUHR, migration and budgets are all in jeopardy.
    Gove..May…Osborne…Cameron….all Blairite robots. Don’t these deluded types realise that there time has passed and the public want authentic politicians that speak and think more as they do….

    Mr Gove was in his friend Mr Osborne’s pocket from the beginning of the campaign as he plotted to dispatch Mr Johnson in the event of a leave vote. Now he stands ready to eliminate the only other change candidate by mobilising May supporters to deny ordinary party members the choice of voting for Mrs Leadsom. What is it about the vote against the hated sense of entitlement and anti democratic nature of the Eu did Mr Boles and Mr Gove not understand ?.

    The wording of Mr Boles leaked email is telling – ‘Are we really confident that the leadership wont vote for a fresh face that shares many of their attitudes about modern life’.
    God forbid Conservative voters might just get what they want for a change instead of being ridiculed and ignored constantly……

  49. Pete Stroud
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    Absolutely correct JR, I was totally amazed when I heard her propose her silly idea. Furthermore, this was repeated by her minister in the Commons yesterday. Such poor judgement from the likely new leader is most worrying. She must retract.

  50. Matt
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    Apologies for being off-topic, but I couldn’t help myself with the vote today.
    Our kind host is much wiser in such matters than I, but Leadsom is looking spectacularly unimpressive. It’s looking disturbingly like a matter of vote Leadsom, get May.

  51. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

    JR, I heard you in the debate in Parliament. Very good contribution.

    Given most MPs are not also Oscar-winning professional actors, I was surprised how many senior MPs are not in-the-know nor having at least a layman’s appreciation of the almost impossible scenario of queues of migrants a million in number toting suitcases and pushing prams from Maidstone to the Channel port of Dover.
    A number of MPs of extraordinary intelligence and experience cited their own husbands and wives and children weeping. Quite frankly such MPs should be removed from Parliament , given a cup of tea and the bus fare back to their Constituencies where they should be summarily be deselected. They are up to be leaders of our people.

  52. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    ,not

  53. Atlas
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

    Agreed John.

  54. forthurst
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

    WWIII has been averted, for now.

  55. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

    How on earth are May supporters saying she was a successful Home Secretary? What possible yardstick or headline would possibly show she has been anything but a ghastly failure?

    1. Failed Rotherham
    2. Failed to remedy Rotherham after knowing nothing about Rotherham year in year out.
    3. Failed to deport one man for seven years to Jordan who she could not keep in jail in the UK
    4. Failed to curb immigration and deport undesirables.

    5.Failed to connect with the electorate in the country. Even the police, jail warders, armed forces and families will not vote for her.

    On the plus side, if their are any concealed Corbynistas secreted in the Conservative Party membership they will definitely vote for her in the final ballot in the greater membership.

    The Labour Party , in a few years with even a half decent leader, will deprive the Conservative Party of a majority in a National Election.

    The Tory party shot itself in the foot denying Boris. One foot left.

    • turboterrier
      Posted July 7, 2016 at 10:25 pm | Permalink

      Christopher Houston

      I get the impression Mrs May is not the one for you?

      Totally agree

  56. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

    Theresa May dares, has the audacity, to stand for leadership after being blind, deaf, and dumb to 16 years of child prostitution, substance abuse amongst tens of hundreds of children in Rotherham, Halifax, Huddersfield, Dewsbury, and every major city in the country.
    Her solution on national TV, her first, second and third thought on Rotherham was amazingly:-
    “The Labour party has suspended the Labour Party membership of the Police Commissioner in Rotherham. ”

    Well done.

    Of course Ms Leadsom cannot do a worse job than Ms May,unless she fails to clock in for work.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 8, 2016 at 9:37 am | Permalink

      The Prime Minister does not have to clock in for work; we know that because Blair once made a feeble joke about his working hours being so long that he was probably breaking some EU law or other.

  57. Anonymous
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

    We should find ourselves in a strong position to make demands on the #1 issue with British voters. If the dire situation of Greece or Italy threatens the world economy then imagine what will happen if the UK economy is made to implode because of spite, revenge or self fulfilling forecasting.

    Had the EU listened to Cameron’s modest demands on migration we would not be in this position.

  58. Edward2
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

    A fair system would give people from all nations the same chances of coming here and contributing.
    The current system is unfair.
    The post war average was in the tens of thousands per year.
    And this seems to me to be a good target.
    Copy immigration policies in other nations.
    600,000 new arrivals per year is not sustainable.

    • Caterpillar
      Posted July 7, 2016 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

      Edward2, I am not sure that that is a definition of fair (equal vs. equitable and all that). I think there is a chance to be pragmatic and decent, e.g. Multipliers of minimum wage for those from EU27, short-term right to stay and work from those sending remittances to family in poorer parts of the world (count this in our aid budget), a 1 or 2 year period after achieving a science, technology or similar degree to find a position (perhaps Dyson suggested this when so many capable postgrads are forced to take the knowledge elsewhere)…

      A second point, whilst I’m not saying there should be mass migration, is for politicians to have a no holds barred conversation on how mass migration could be sustainable – I think a select committee on this would be useful. Let’s unpick the problems.

  59. Eleanor Justice
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

    Good evening Mr Redwood
    It is not only the EU migrants that need controlled those outside the EU that are coming here need to be counted.
    Does the words down the river and sold mean anything to you because I have an Uneasy feeling that is what is happening.

  60. John Robertson
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

    I joined as a Conservative member today in the hope that I will get a vote to support Andrea Leadsom. For so many reasons.

    • John Robertson
      Posted July 7, 2016 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

      And they don’t make it easy unless that’s just my computer?

    • bratwurst
      Posted July 7, 2016 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

      Thought you had to be a member of the Conservative party for 3 months to be able to vote in the leadership election. I should ask for your money back! 🙂

      • Richard1
        Posted July 7, 2016 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

        Correct you do

      • Cheshire Girl
        Posted July 8, 2016 at 6:42 am | Permalink

        You do have to be a member for three months to be able to vote in the leadership election.

        I’m sure that new members are very welcome, but unfortunately those that join now are too late to vote for the next Leader.

    • CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
      Posted July 7, 2016 at 8:32 pm | Permalink

      John Robertson:

      It seems new members will not get a vote . Not to worry. In the worst scenario Ms May will not last past the next General Election nor a number of her MP supporters.

    • John Robertson
      Posted July 8, 2016 at 6:39 am | Permalink

      Oh well never mind no harm done.

  61. bratwurst
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 8:08 pm | Permalink

    She can’t change the law on immigration until we leave the EU, which is 2 years after invoking Article 50.

    • Iain Gill
      Posted July 7, 2016 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

      rubbish, we can do exactly what we want to do

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 8, 2016 at 9:42 am | Permalink

      She can’t change the law anyway, as she has only one vote as an MP, but what she could do is announce now that once we were out of the EU she would promote changes in the law which would be retroactive. But not to any earlier date than the day we voted to leave the EU, June 23rd 2016.

  62. Iain Gill
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

    If Ms May gets in I fully expect Conservative seats to fall to UKIP at the next election. That’s the bottom line.

  63. stred
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

    The referendum was fought by Remain/Ukip and both stated clearly that those EU citizens who were already here could stay. The leaders are still saying this. For the Remain side to take over and alter the conditions is absurd and immoral. If they wish to change sides they must stick to the agreed course which was approved by the electorate. This proposal is another example of arrogant unsupported policies made on the hoof.

    Thank goodness Mrs Leadsom is the choice and has disowned this disgraceful policy. The members should also keep make sure they choose to stick to the terms of the referendum campaign.

  64. Iain Gill
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

    On another issue, moving address again. I find that at the new place I have precisely no choice of GP or school again. What exactly is the point of the GP and school rating systems when the customers have absolutely no choice anyways. Catchment areas are evil, and precisely whats wrong with the public sector in this country. Give the buying power to the individual citizens!

    After how many years of Conservative government I find myself still in this take it or leave it some are more equal than other Orwellian nightmare.

    Where anywhere do any services perform well where the end customers have no choice?

    Staggering really

  65. gyges01
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 9:52 pm | Permalink

    When I voted Leave I was driven to do so by Democracy and Sovereignty and, to my shame, not immigration. I say to my shame because I took the selfish middle class position that ‘it didn’t affect me so it didn’t matter’. During the debates amongst friends and colleagues I was chastened by someone who was directly affected by immigration. He was undercut by an immigrant on more than one occasion.

    I know two people: one a scientist, the other a shepherd/farm labourer (depending upon the time of year). The scientist has worked in Europe, travels frequently to Europe and enjoys all the benefits of the EU, whilst the shepherd is poorly paid, can’t afford many holidays and is often undercut by immigrant labour when he does farm labouring work. How could we ever have supported such a cruel and divisive policy? A policy that allowed one half of the population to benefit while the other half was being slowly impoverished year on year.

  66. Mike Wilson
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 10:00 pm | Permalink

    This is one of those weird subjects that come up every now and then – that are endlessly mulled over in the media – but where the basic, fundamental issues are never actually addressed.

    Mr. Redwood, perhaps you could answer the question …

    Why is the immigration we can control so high?

  67. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted July 7, 2016 at 11:14 pm | Permalink

    Judging by tonight’s BBCQT, the consensus from the Remainers for scuppering the result on leaving the EU is a General Election with the government putting forward its re-negotiation to the British electorate and if they are voted into power again then it means we are voting to remain in the EU thus cancelling out the referendum.
    What do these safety-pin sporting anti-democratic extremists think will happen next?

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 8, 2016 at 9:47 am | Permalink

      Correct, an early general election is being urged by some only because it would be one possible way to neutralise the referendum result. Unfortunately there are others who are being suckered into supporting the idea. This is why we need the Article 50 notice to go in as soon as possible.

  68. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted July 8, 2016 at 1:09 am | Permalink

    EU migrants who arrived to reside up to and including June 23rd should be allowed to stay. Those arriving on June 24th and subsequently should not. If Mrs May has not put in place systems to give us this information, she should be sacked.

    I agree with you about a fast Brexit, though. We should rid ourselves of the tyranny of the two year wait demanded after invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

    My MP has ticked me off for suggesting that we repeal our Act of Accession to the Lisbon Treaty unilaterally, on the grounds that the Lisbon Treaty is part of international law. This must be wrong on two grounds (a) the Lisbon Treaty is regional law and (b) it is not crystal clear what constitutes international law.

    There are, nevertheless, plenty of bright young things who want to study international law and expand it. It’s the old, old story of prefessional people wanting to create work for themselves.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 8, 2016 at 10:27 am | Permalink

      I wouldn’t tick you off on grounds of international law but on these grounds:

      1. When the UK government deposited its instruments of ratification of the amending Treaty of Lisbon including the introduction of a new “exit clause”, Article 50 TEU, it formally announced to the world that it consented to be bound by the provisions of that treaty, which included agreeing that if a member state wanted to leave the EU then it should use the procedure laid down in that article; and having agreed to that, we should at least try it in the first instance.

      2. If you involve Parliament before lodging the Article 50 notice then there is a real risk that parliamentarians in both Houses will stop it dead and try to prevent us ever leaving the EU, and even if an Act did get through it would not actually take us out of the EU because our membership of the EU is not by virtue of any Act of Parliament but by virtue of the instruments of ratification.

      3. On the other hand if the government can use Royal Prerogative to serve the Article 50 notice that we intend to leave the EU then that will be pretty much irreversible. In strict legal terms it may not be completely irreversible, but in political terms it would be very close to irreversible.

  69. Anonymous
    Posted July 8, 2016 at 4:26 am | Permalink

    The Daily Mail says Theresa May is the only one with PM qualities that can ‘reunite’ the country.

    Well last time I looked we were still a united country. In disagreement, but united. That’s democracy. Most of those I know who voted Remain couldn’t stand the EU either but believed Project Fear.

    So here we go again. Yet another pro EU Blairist ruling over us. How bloody depressing.

    This is not about ‘uniting us’. It is about feeding us into the great EU sausage mincer.

    “You may vote Leave but you can never Leave.” Yanis Varoufakis (Greek finance minister)

    The wisest words I read before the referendum.

  70. David
    Posted July 8, 2016 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    As someone married to an immigrant I think I know one way to reduce immigration.
    Don’t give immigrants housing benefit or council houses until they have worked here for 5 years.
    If we had that policy in place 20-30 years ago the debate about immigration would be a lot less toxic today. I sometimes wonder if some policies were designed to cause racism.
    BTW I know lots of immigrants who get free/subsidized housing in the UK, sadly my wife is not one of them. One example a Spanish woman who got a flat in Islington within weeks of coming here.

    • anon
      Posted July 9, 2016 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

      What happened to the rule of making oneself intentionally homeless?

      Seems very unfair to a local resident living in less better alternatives.

      • David
        Posted July 11, 2016 at 7:05 am | Permalink

        Good point. The Lib Dems in Tower Hamlets in the 90s refused immigrants housing on the grounds that they made themselves homeless by coming here.
        Sadly this sensible policy was called racist.

  71. Chris
    Posted July 8, 2016 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

    Guido today has a couple of interesting graphs on Theresa May’s record on immigration.

  72. anon
    Posted July 8, 2016 at 9:27 pm | Permalink

    We should also note the population increases in certain parts of the world. This will no doubt lead to further numbers wanting to immigrate to the UK. We should be aware of this and plan for this in our future policy.

    This should inform our diplomatic, trade and economic policy. We want and need these countries to be successful.

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page