The EU pioneers Trump’s anti migrant walls

The liberal Europeans and the EU have been quick to condemn or distance themselves from Mr Trump. They particularly say they dislike his Mexican wall policy designed to reduce the number of migrants.

I find this confusing. All across Europea border walls and fences are springing up. The EU itself is encouraging Ukraine and Turkey to build these barriers, and offering EU tax revenue to help pay for them.

There are now walls and fences between Hungary and Serbia; between Hungary and Croatia; between Greece and Macedonia; betwenn Greece and Turkey; between Slovenia and Croatia; between Spain and Morocco in Ceuta and Melilla;between Russia and Ukraine; between Austria and Germany and between Hungary and Slovakia.
Some of these barriers are high razor wire fences, some heavy concrete walls, some have watch towers and some have planned ditches and surveillance strips. In sone locations surveillaince technology is being deployed to stop tunnelling or other ways of evading the barrier. Others are fences.

Can someone explain why all this is fine, yet the Trump plan for Mexico is unacceptable? The EU seems to be aware of the dangers of large scale migration through the lands of Turkey, Ukraine and other neighbouring states with access to the Schengen area. That’s why the grant of freer movement to these countries through Association Agreements includes joint action to control their borders with third countries. How should the EU develop their free movement policies? Is the price of free movement a Trump like armed wall all round the EU? Did Mr Trump copy the idea from the EU’s constructions?

What do we think of walled and fenced Europe? How does this sit with the emphasis on human rights and the general policies on refugees and migrants?

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

160 Comments

  1. Ralph Musgrave
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 6:06 am | Permalink

    Lefties also keep very quiet about the wall that Mexico is thinking of building on its southern border to keep out migrants from further south. Which is a classic bit of leftie (double standards ed)

  2. bluedog
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 6:11 am | Permalink

    If Scotland leaves the UK and joins the EU we should ask M/s Sturgeon to pay for renovations to Hadrian’s Wall.

    • Ed Mahony
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 10:45 am | Permalink

      Hadrian’s wall was never very effective. Instead, Mrs May should hire the Chinese to build the wall ..

      • Mitchel
        Posted October 31, 2016 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

        …and the Russians to defend it!

    • formula57
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 10:59 am | Permalink

      Why should England be disadvantaged by awaiting Scotland’s exit from the Union? Build it now surely?

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 11:02 am | Permalink

      Which runs through the centre of Newcastle!

      The Antonine Wall would better:

      http://www.antoninewall.org/map

      • bratwurst
        Posted October 31, 2016 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

        Denis, won’t using the Antonine wall leave Glasgow & Edinburgh on our side of the wall? We might want to keep Edinburgh but surely not Glasgow:)

    • max
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 11:24 am | Permalink

      Unfortunately it’s in the wrong place.

    • John S
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

      LIke it.

  3. Peter VAN LEEUWEN
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 6:12 am | Permalink

    Rather than confusion, I see this as looking for another stick to beat up the EU once again. There have been fences between Mexico and the US for years already and dislike with Mr Trump really has mainly to do with other aspects of civilization. Mr. Redwood may have viewed Richard Branson (liberal European) in his short video message on this matter. Now turning on civilization, lets compare some numbers: When people fleeing war and hardship flooded Europe, at some point, Austria had to close its border and would “only allow 80 people a day”. That number was still 7 times more than the UK’s “merciful commitment” to allow 20000 refugees over 5 years (= 11 people a day!) Considering that the UK is seven times the size of Austria, that makes it a 4900% British shortfall to the despised Austrian liberal Europeans. Does it really come to pass to start criticizing these fences from the vantage point of having a sea protecting the UK, while today still leaving hundreds of single children and youngsters trapped in the ruins of the Calais jungle?
    I’m surprised to implicitly finding so much support for the likes of Trump among Brexiteers. Some (Farage) even campaign for him!

    • APL
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 10:13 am | Permalink

      Peter Van Leeuwen: “while today still leaving hundreds of single children and youngsters trapped in the ruins of the Calais jungle?”

      Be my guest, Peter. Jump into your Mercedes GL 4×4, drive down to Calais and pick up a couple of children take them back to Holland or Brussels and provide succor to them in the bosom of your family and comfort of you own extensive establishment.

      Go on, be the good Samaritan.

      • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
        Posted November 1, 2016 at 9:30 pm | Permalink

        @APL: No idea or interest what a Mercedes GL 4×4 would look like.
        I don’t think that it is really clever in this blog to keep looking for sticks to beat up the EU. Your and our governments still have to navigate through difficult Brexit proceedings assuming that article 50 will be triggered early 2017.

        • APL
          Posted November 2, 2016 at 7:41 am | Permalink

          PvL: “I don’t think that it is really clever in this blog to keep looking for sticks to beat up the EU. ”

          I’m not.

          I am suggesting you ‘put your money where your mouth is’, and instead of telling everyone else what to do, do it yourself.

          Drive down to Calais and pick up one or two of the Jungle children and look after them.

          It’s what you are urging everyone else to do, – so, set a good example.

          etc ed
          Good luck.

    • Roy Grainger
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 10:19 am | Permalink

      “There have been fences between Mexico and the US for years already and dislike with Mr Trump really has mainly to do with other aspects of civilization.”

      The President of Mexico called Trump’s wall plan “racist”. Trump’s opponents routinely call him racist for this proposal. By the same token then the EU’s erection of fences and so on also must be racist. You can’t have it both ways. Trying to deflect the argument into whether UK should take more refugees from France (rather than, say, Syria) is hardly relevant.

      • Hope
        Posted October 31, 2016 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

        PvL, alleged children in Calais, what is wrong with leaving children or adults in France it is a civilised country where support can be given to the those in need.

        Your sentiment and anecdote is quite wrong. Most of these are economic migrants as May first claimed. Refugees and asylum seekers would have nothing to hide about their identity why not have their proper papers with them? We could see where they come from and what age they are? No papers no process. Australia leads the way in this regard.

        Your contribution is based on what fact exactly? Your comparison about Austria is worthless. The UK overseas aid, currently running at about £14 billion, is more than most EU countries put together. The EU wastes £2 billion of our taxes on mating programmes for exoctic fish! Merkel wanted these people and she should have them and the bill to go with it. Cameron made it clear that only migrants from recognised camps would be considered not Calais as this would encourage human traffickers.

        I am sorry the UK is full, public services cannot cope and the security services overwhelmed. Good luck with your EU problem.

        • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
          Posted November 1, 2016 at 9:41 pm | Permalink

          @Hope that facts are presented???
          Even ignoring the declining pound sterling which doesn’t bode well for future overseas aid (I’ll take 2015), the rest of the EU members spent almost 4 x as much as the UK, so like a good Brexiteer, you’re just making it up as you go.

      • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
        Posted October 31, 2016 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

        @Roy Grainger: I don’t view Trump as necessarily racist or non-racist, I do think he has serious problems in his personality. If you look for a clip from 2 weeks ago in which Richard Branson describes his first ever lunch with Donald Trump you may see where I’m coming from. The blog is about fences and walls and having a whole sea to protect you makes you rather unqualified to lecture others on fences and walls. And as the fences have everything to do with refugees, fleeing war and hardship, referring to the UK’s poor record is no deflection, but providing context.

    • Oggy
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 10:21 am | Permalink

      Peter what you fail to say is that the UK’s net inward migration is 330,000 per year. We now have 3.3 million Eastern Europeans living here – so I’m afraid we are full up – sorry.
      I don’t know what the net immigration is into Austria – is it more than 330,000 a year ? would you care to enlighten us ?
      Besides Mrs Merkel said ‘all refugees welcome here’ so Germany can take them all.

      • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
        Posted October 31, 2016 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

        @Oggy: Austria and the UK are comparable as far as net migration is concerned (between 4 and 6 per 1000 inhabitants). The Netherlands is far smaller and much more densely populated than the UK and managed to cope with many more refugees than the UK.

    • Ed Mahony
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 10:38 am | Permalink

      The French have been pretty decent to us over Calais. I think this generosity only happened because we’re both in the EU. Once out, we’re going to have to begin dealing with mass migration from the Middle East and Africa on our own more (the EU countries in general won’t be so obliging in general to share resources / help out in general and this is going to become an important issue more and more in the future unless of course our economy sinks and migrants decide to go elsewhere).

      • Qubus
        Posted October 31, 2016 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

        But surely, the rules are that the refugees/migrants should seek asylum in the first safe country that they come to. So, legally, if not morally, we are quite within our rights not to accept them.
        What would happen if I were able just to turn up on America’s doorstep and demand to be given asylum?

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted November 1, 2016 at 9:04 am | Permalink

        How is it decent to allow illegal immigrants to enter your country because you think they will only pass through on the way to another country? Which as far as the EU side of the Mediterranean is concerned starts with the Italians and Spanish, and then continues with the French.

    • a-tracy
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 11:07 am | Permalink

      PVL which years are you quoting figures for Austria compared to the UK? I read an article that said over the last ten years 60% of asylum claims had been rejected but only 25% were returned, 75% remain. I wonder what Austria is like in direct comparison? It appears we have a problem in the UK more returning and stopping people that aren’t genuinely here than stopping people coming in. David Cameron was telling us he had sent lots of money to support refugee centres around the world, are Austria contributing the same amounts in ratio, I think this is important as we can only spend money once.

      • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
        Posted November 1, 2016 at 9:59 pm | Permalink

        @a-tracy: I remember making this UK-Austria comparison at the time (2015) that Austria had to “close” its border, which was within months of Cameron making his deceptive (= 5 year) offer to take 20000 refugees. Proper comparisons will always be difficult because of the different situations. Sadly, it is all too easy (e.g. for politicians and media) to confuse matters, make wild claims and forget the human dimension. I once saw it suggested in a blog (I’ll keep you guessing which) that the UK took in over 300000 refugees annually. Maybe that number looked better in comparison what Mrs Merkel felt she had to?
        If Britain had been Germany, it would have had the experience of a quarter of its population displaced at the end of WWII. The UK lacks that human experience and in spite of individual British being most kind and generous, the UK governments, in my experience usually have a very hard (and often militaristic) set of policies.

    • graham1946
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 11:09 am | Permalink

      PVL

      As usual, in criticising the UK for ‘not taking in enough’ you overlook the several million that have come in mainly from the accession countries over recent years and although it is not PC to say so, are ruining the lives of some of the indiginous population,for example in Boston, Lincs. (Please don’t start an argument over mongrel nation, where we all came from in the Stone Age etc) causing a shortage of housing, doctors appointments, school places etc.etc.
      Despite what the ‘right on’ Notting Hill dinner table set say, this is actually happening. Right here I tried to make an appointment with my doctor and was offered one in 6 weeks, whereas back in 2010 I could get one for the next day most of the time.. I had a hospital appointment which I could net keep due to illness and on advising them 2 days before, was told I’d have to go to the back of the queue for the next one and got my appointment for next December (2017). It is not a question of race but of numbers. Our stupid politicians allowed it to happen to suit their political ambitions and to lower UK wage costs, which is why the big businesses love the EU.
      On Trump, there is not much support among Brexiteers, but at least he is not Clinton. If she is elected nothing will change as predicted by Einstein, but the USA voters poor choice is because it’s all about money. The days of the farm boy dreaming of being POTUS is gone. Multi millionaires only need apply.

      • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
        Posted November 1, 2016 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

        @graham1946: I suppose I’m fortunate that I can see my GP within days and a hospital specialist usually within two weeks (unless it is urgent). I understand that the UK has a severe problem of (public) service providing and I know that a migration rate of between 4 and 6 per 1000 inhabitants is high (be it not impossible).
        A constructive UK could have offered far far more in other (financial) terms to help with the refugee problem, but it preferred to do only a little financing a little help for refugees and then make a lot of noise about it (“we pay so much more than other countries!”)
        My issue is that it doesn’t make sense to always blame the EU for each and every problem at home, even less to start looking for sticks to beat the EU. No walls in the UK, of course not, you have the sea! Why not stay out of that discussion. If the UK had copied other EU nations (e.g. the Netherlands) the borders would only very gradually have been opened for the new EU members after 2004. I only hear some noises in your (weak) opposition about dealing with wage undercutting, whereas in the Netherlands this is and has been government policy. Shortage of housing is as much (or more) due to government policy than to the influx of new UK citizens (always branded as “foreigners”). Lack of balance in the ethnic composition of communities is also a home-grown (neglected) issue. I don’t often react to this blog, after all you’re leaving, and I’m sorry to have to be critical if I try to be honest.

    • a-tracy
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 11:14 am | Permalink

      “I’m surprised to implicitly finding so much support for the likes of Trump among Brexiteers”.

      I don’t think it is support for Trump per se, more concerns about what Hilary is reported to have said about the UK post Brexit and that she see’s no trade relationship with the UK afterward.

      • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
        Posted October 31, 2016 at 8:59 pm | Permalink

        @a-tracy: obviously there will be trade relations between US and UK, you cannot expect however that the US will treat the UK better than it will treat the much larger EU.

        • a-tracy
          Posted November 1, 2016 at 8:46 am | Permalink

          Hilary was reported in the Independent recently saying we would be at the back of the queue if she was elected. I would expect the US to treat us as we treat them and no worse than the EU! Size isn’t everything Peter 🙂

          • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
            Posted November 1, 2016 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

            @a-tracy: of course Hilary (and Barack) also had ulterior motives (of a geopolitical, transatlantic nature), when they made their comments (and virtually all world-leaders except Vladimir have come out in support of “remain”) but in trade size does still count for something. 🙂

    • lojolondon
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 11:27 am | Permalink

      As always, Mr Van Leeuwen has ignored the main point, and come up with some statistics to support an argument that was never raised. I am delighted that Britain will be able to manage the influx of people. I am also pleased to hear that, because Britain apparently contributes so little to the EU, they will not miss our input.
      We look forward with interest to the referendums and public votes in Denmark, The Netherlands, Hungary that will explain properly to the EU that it is unfit for purpose, and to the success of anti-EU candidates in France, Germany, Italy, Spain general elections that will hopefully mean an end to the rotten EU in all it’s forms.
      etc ed

      • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
        Posted November 1, 2016 at 10:32 pm | Permalink

        @lojolondon: If you don’t like numbers, let’s return to my main argument: Your country is surrounded by a sea which is even more effective than a wall (forget about 1688 🙂 ). I don’t think that puts you in a position to lecture the continent on how it deals with borders.

    • alan jutson
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 11:28 am | Permalink

      Peter

      People are not trapped in the Jungle at Calais, they went there of their own accord and by choice, and can leave anytime they like, France is not at war, is a peaceful and civilised Country, and the South of France has far better weather, indeed its where we tend to go for some of our Holidays.

      Those in the so called Jungle seem to want to come to the UK for a particular reason, is it because we are better at creating jobs than the rest of the EU, is it because we are giving out houses and money.
      Or is it simply regarded as one of the best places to live (all things being considered)

      People do not have to go to the Jungle if they have proper family ties here, as all they need to do is fill in some proper forms and wait to be invited.

      The proper place from which to take REFUGEES is the official camps where they can be properly vetted, and which we are funding to the tune of over £one billion a year, which is rather more than any other Country in the World, short of the USA.

      EU politicians and their policies of open borders have helped create this mass movement of people, after the original massive mistake of the West wanting/helping so called regime change.

      I think over 300,000 extra people net a year is already rather too many for our small Country to continue to take given the land mass we have.

      We do not need a stick to beat up the EU, you are doing well enough at self harm already.

    • Anonymous
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 11:35 am | Permalink

      PvL – We have already seen our communities transformed beyond recognition in the past fifteen years. These demands are being made after millions of arrivals under uncontrolled mass immigration and seen good will stretched to breaking point – hence the decision to leave the EU.

      One suspects that you live in an untouched community and (as with celebrities) demand that other people pay the price of your humanity.

      • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
        Posted October 31, 2016 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

        @Anonymous: Not enough adequate housing and services was a matter of policy choices by your own government, which is still under-providing these, while not having addressed the undercutting of wages by employers who exploit foreigners and forget British workers. Addressing such problems might have worked better than your current anti-(EU)foreigner hype. The Netherlands largely made different policy choices and the level of xenophobia is lower. I live in a very ordinary street in a very ordinary town.

        • Anonymous
          Posted November 1, 2016 at 7:34 am | Permalink

          Our own government could not (and cannot) plan adequate housing and services for the unforseen or numbers which are always vastly underestimated.

          We are not a xenophobic nation. The rise in xenophobia seems to be a greater issue on the Continent and I can see a time when there is a flood of refugees to Britain fleeing right wing extremism – in fact Calais refugees already state that this is the case.

          “I live in a very ordinary street in a very ordinary town.”

          Well. So do many who manage to remain unaffected. (I used the word ‘untouched’)

          • Anonymous
            Posted November 1, 2016 at 7:45 am | Permalink

            (I used the word ‘untouched’)

            I didn’t envisage you being rich, just middle class – which, in this country, means one’s backside is protected from the fire by the layer of people beneath.

            Hence lots of middle class people are enthusiastic about mass immigration and refugees.

        • a-tracy
          Posted November 1, 2016 at 8:57 am | Permalink

          How many houses and apartments are we building in the UK Peter? I ask because you seem so well informed. How does this compare to the Netherlands?
          Many of our Councils took the decision to sell their housing stock to Housing Associations, the residents in our towns were told the Housing Associations would be the ones investing in new home building whilst maintaining old homes. Where I live they are buildings 1000’s of new homes every year, where my son lives they are building tens of 1000’s of new apartments every year. His town is nearly unrecognisable in just three years.

          The UK is also building hundreds of 1000’s of private homes because people still prefer to purchase where they can around the UK (maybe not so easy in London and the SE). We have been accommodating hundreds of thousands of net migrants (is it around 400,000pa) and 90% of this movement is into England. Young adults can’t get into Social housing even when they are overcrowding, the waiting lists are always getting longer because homeless people get priority and if you have any family willing to put a roof over your head you get trapped.

        • rose
          Posted November 1, 2016 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

          But we don’t want our country built up any more. It is far too built up already. There isn’t a town or village in England which isn’t under siege from the developers. We need to build a city the size of Newcastle every year, just to keep up with immigration. Where do you think these 25 cities should be built? Besides doctors and teachers, schools and hospitals, shops, garages, houses and flats, you also have to think of sewage, water, roads, traffic, pollution, other transport, rubbish disposal, and energy. Then there is food security. Our population should not be over 35 million to manage all this, which is still 7 times a Nordic population, and the same size as Canada. Why is that so unreasonable? Why aren’t we allowed to think of the environment, and the next generations?

    • Sir Joe Soap
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 11:36 am | Permalink

      Exactly where the idea of the EU breaks down. UK policy wouldn’t have them there in the first place. French policy as usual in history is to let the problem fester then pass over to the UK or USA to sort it out. Non plus.

    • stred
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 11:41 am | Permalink

      Peter words left out ed
      Lots of Dutch lorries come over every day, hopefully without child refugees in them, and take flowers to shops for men to buy to keep their wives and girlfriends happy. After a few days doing nothing, these flowers are thrown away and dumped.This seems to be a huge waste in terms of CO2 and methane. Would you not agree that, in order to protect the environment, the flower growers should move to the Fens or women should accept plastic flowers. The low pound makes this an attractive proposition.

      • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
        Posted November 1, 2016 at 10:55 pm | Permalink

        @stred: I had expected you to be a bit more romantic! 🙂
        Even post Brexit there we will send you flowers (if you pay up), I wouldn’t be surprised at someone will cultivate another special tulip and name it “Brexit”.
        St. Georges Cross colors, in anticipation of a UK break-up? 🙂

        • stred
          Posted November 2, 2016 at 8:24 am | Permalink

          Peter. What! The English are about as romantic as the Hollandaise. As for Dutch Brexit tulips, I stopped buying HP Sauce when it was produced in Holland and buy cheap supermarket brown. When I visited den Hague and had my car towed away in 1985, I banned Dutch produce for 20 years. Beware of making enemies of your friends.

        • stred
          Posted November 2, 2016 at 8:43 am | Permalink

          Re population density Peter, this may help. England is only less dense than Holland, and SE England is even denser,as is SouthHolland. Try getting out of your EU cocoon and driving between Utrecht and Amsterdam any day .https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/356

          • stred
            Posted November 2, 2016 at 8:50 am | Permalink

            Note figure 3. Netherlands falling but England and Belgium shooting up.

    • BOF
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

      Good to see that your mathematics is so good Peter. Perhaps you would like to apply them to migrant numbers and available resources. Such as; school places, medical facilities and housing. How about taxpayers money which is now supporting most migrants in Germany. How about the social impact of trying to integrate the sheer numbers of migrants with the indigenous populations, and finding employment for both these groups.
      The UK is already a very highly populated country.

      • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
        Posted October 31, 2016 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

        @BOF: The Netherlands is far smaller and much more densely populated than the UK and managed to cope with many more refugees than the UK. That your services are stretched may mainly be a consequence of your government under-providing these services. Migrants do contribute by taxes, and add to the economy.

        • Anonymous
          Posted November 1, 2016 at 7:41 am | Permalink

          Yet the national debt keeps climbing PvL – this is before we start on a programme of house, school and hospital building.

          SOME migrants contribute by taxes would be the more accurate statement. Low earners are often being subsidised to live here.

        • a-tracy
          Posted November 1, 2016 at 9:17 am | Permalink

          Is the Netherlands paying as much as the UK into refugee camps set up elsewhere in the world Peter?

    • Bert Young
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

      PvL ,
      You have looked at the numbers from the wrong point of view ; the UK is the most congested country in Europe . Trump is not a particular “favourite” as far as I am concerned , he – like Clinton , are both unfortunate candidates for the most important job in the world . Meanwhile – regards ( I’ve always enjoyed your responses ).

      • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
        Posted October 31, 2016 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

        @Bert Young: Didn’t the UK make itself “congested” by its policies over the last fifteen years since the accession of ten countries to the EU, in itself much promoted by the British government?
        Isn’t it weird that your champion brexiteer falsely warned that 70 million Turkish would swamp the UK, and now, after the referendum promises the Turkish government to fight for Turkish EU membership?

        • a-tracy
          Posted November 2, 2016 at 9:40 am | Permalink

          I agree Peter, the Labour government of Blair and Brown made big mistakes and ignored their key voters, that’s why the Labour party is on its knees, if the people had a ‘Scottish National Party’ choice in England I don’t think the Labour party would gain sufficient support to be a major opposition because it repeatedly ignores its voters problems. Just one example there is a town in Merseyside with the worst performing schools in England they are local authority run, yet the electorate keep re-electing the same people to run their Council and not sort out this major problem, they can debate all they want, disagree all they want but I want the government to make the change, stop talking (which has been going on for decades and hand wringing) and just get on with a change, even if it only saves the 20% that are currently failing and falling through the cracks now it’s better than what they’ve got!

          There is change coming you can feel it and sense it and if it took a big shock to jolt our Country out of complacency then perhaps it will be a good thing.

    • michael mcgrath
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

      PVL

      Austria 101.4 people per sq km

      UK 255.6 people per sq km

      • a-tracy
        Posted November 1, 2016 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

        I wonder what this figure is just for England or London?

      • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
        Posted November 1, 2016 at 10:59 pm | Permalink

        @michael mcgrath:
        Netherlands: 488 people per sq km and we did take in 60000 refugees last year, I’m talking refugees here, not migrants.

        • APL
          Posted November 3, 2016 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

          PvL: “Netherlands: 488 people per sq km and we did take in 60000 refugees last year, ”

          Great work.

          Now, just fill in some more of the North Sea, and you can get another 100,000 ‘refugees’ next year.

    • Andy
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

      Everyone in Calais is not a ‘refugee’: they are all migrants and economic ones at that.

    • Timaction
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

      Dear Peter,
      As a Dutchman what does the UK Governments policy on immigration have to do with you. The UK and England in particular has taken millions of migrants from all categories and has had enough. This has placed an intolerable burden on our Health, housing, education and other public services. We are the most overcrowded Nation in Europe.
      If we were to take the 10,000 economic migrants predominantly from Africa NOT Syria, what about the next 10,000 or the next ad infinitum? Millions from the third world want to come to the west. Why don’t you take them to the Netherlands and see how popular that policy is with the Dutch people? When are you and the rest of the left and EU people going to campaign for the rich middle eastern countries to take some of the refugees and others who want a better life?

      • fedupsoutherner
        Posted November 1, 2016 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

        Hear, hear

      • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
        Posted November 1, 2016 at 11:02 pm | Permalink

        @Timaction: And what have borders on the continent to do with you? Why not juststick to preparing your Brexit? It should keep you adequately busy.

        • Timaction
          Posted November 2, 2016 at 9:24 am | Permalink

          If France and other Nations had secure borders these people wouldn’t be in Calais. It’s a French and EU non secure borders problem NOT Britain. So deal with it and don’t pass the buck here! Just keep handing out the razors to these “children” when you take them to the Netherlands Peter.
          Trade and friendship deal is easy with a £80 billion EU trade deficit Peter!

      • rose
        Posted November 1, 2016 at 11:39 pm | Permalink

        The curious thing about all this is that when Africans and Asians were really poor, many of them starving, no-one thought they ought to be taken into Northern European countries to be looked after.

        Having benefited from much aid and medical intervention, the ones who force their way into Europe now are well fed, and the strongest, fittest, and best off. Why, prey, do they suddenly have to be looked after in this tiny overcrowded little island?

    • Yosarion
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

      Lying on his Island of Nectar, with no Jungle camp in sight.

    • David Price
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 7:44 pm | Permalink

      At 262 heads per km2 the UK has a population density 2.5 times that of Austria (http://statisticstimes.com/population/countries-by-population-density.php). The Nederlands is even higher and we both exceed Germany, Italy, France, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, Greece and Ireland.

      Why should we take more when at it’s root it is a problem created by a German chancellor taking a unilateral and ill-advised decision, and an EU bureaucracy that refuses to put the needs of EU citizens first..

      • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
        Posted November 1, 2016 at 11:06 pm | Permalink

        @David Price: It is a bit simplistic to ignore the havoc of wars. It is a bit like saying that this is all to blame on a UK government deciding to invade Iraq and creating lasting chaos and division (no plans for after that war)

    • SoWhat
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 10:45 pm | Permalink

      This may shock you. But many of us are against receiving one single refugee of whatever age, whatever the circumstances.

      • Anonymous
        Posted November 1, 2016 at 7:36 am | Permalink

        And I bet you weren’t always like that.

    • Peter D Gardner
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 10:51 pm | Permalink

      The point surely is that border controls are necessary whichever way you look at it. The real question is not numbers of migrants per day (your statistical comparisons are quite specious by the way) but where the borders should be, what should be allowed to cross them in what circumstances and how they should be policed? Which comes down to fundamental questions about their purpose. The problem we have in the American election is that people are screaming at each other with their brains entirely absent. Rational debate in Britain about Brexit, indeed about the EU is approaching a similar state of mindless slanging, unfounded assertion and personal attacks.

      Unfortunately, political decisions are too often made on the basis of silencing the noisiest and most troublesome shouters by granting their demands. In the science of cybernetics it is known as the Pandemonium model of decision making. It is very dangerous and unlikely to make the right decisions.

      This Pandemonium is filling the silence left by Mrs May’s delaying invoking Article 50 and intent to prolong Brexit negotiations in order to agree with the EU a new partnership or association treaty instead of focussing as she should on a clean break to give certainty and developing UK as an independent, sovereign and free trading nation.

  4. The Active Citizen
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 6:13 am | Permalink

    Most people detest hypocrisy. Alas far fewer recognise it.

    Hungary was lambasted across the European media for its ‘barbaric’ and ‘inhumane’ actions in putting up its fences. None of them reported that Hungary was experiencing the highest number of migrants of any EU country, according to Eurostat figures. And none of the media nor the EU then apologised to Hungary over the following months, when so many other EU countries erected barbed-wire fences and more, as you described above.

    The EU’s Schengen area has shown itself incapable of deporting illegal migrants (I don’t recall the exact numbers but around 1-2% springs to mind) and therefore it must have controllable borders. There’s nothing racist or xenophobic about this. It’s perfectly normal that states cannot allow illegal immigration – particularly on the scale we’ve seen in Europe in the last 3 years.

    As to how this sits with those worried about human rights and wanting a welcoming attitude to migration in the EU, the only thing to say is “Get real”.

  5. Lifelogic
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 6:17 am | Permalink

    Ideed, blatant EU hypocrisy as usual. They do not want to do the deed themselves so they just pay others to do it for them at a distance. That way the EU politicians can superficially appear to keep their hands clean. They can tut, tut and virtue signal from the sidelines and mutter about human rights and human dignity, being nice to everyone and all the rest.

    Appalling double standards as usual from the PC/EU establishment. They would rather waste billions on nonsense renewable energy subsidies, promoting the climate alarm religion and countless other insanities than do anything substantive to help these people in, or near, their own countries.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

      Theresa May backs Mark Carney as ‘best man’ for Bank of England.

      Wrong, wrong & wrong again. Just how dire does someone have to be to get replaced in the state sector? What has Theresa actually managed to get right so far?

      Grammar schools, but she will almost certainly be unable to deliver it anyway.
      The runway at Heathrow, but we need two and anyway Gatwick would be quicker, easier and the better choice as the first one.

      HS2, Hinkley, workers & customers on boards, Carney, half of the cabinet wet remainers & greencrap lefties, the bonkers lagoon(?), the lack of a statement on Uber, the lack of Lilley, JR, Cash, Mogg and the few other few sensible MPs in government, the failure to undo Osborne’s minimum wage lunacy, the failure to cut any red tape, stamp duty or green crap grants, or the excessive stamp duty or to keep the IHT promise of years ago……………..

      So that is about 1.5 out of about 20 that she has got right so far. Not the best of records. She will struggle to even deliver that one and a half too.

      Is she perhaps a bit daft, unscientific and innumerate? Or did Cameron leave his broken compass lying around and she is now using it too?

      Hammond on stage soon let us hope against all expectations that he can do something sensible.

    • turboterrier
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 11:43 pm | Permalink

      @ Lifelogic

      waste billions on nonsense renewable energy subsidies, promoting the climate alarm religion and countless other insanities

      There is a very good piece from Scotland Against Spin doing the rounds regarding subsidies for turbines which has tried to get printed on this blog but failed. I have sent it to a number of Westminster politicians and have had a fair number of responses thanking me for the information. If the bad weather predictions are as real as the predict it will highlight just how bad the whole energy industry and policies really are. Then you will see large numbers of politicians walking backwards away from the grim reality of their ridiculous decisions. Sadly the majority of politicians do not have to live with the consequences of their decisions and live in their little constituency world and do not have a scooby do as to what is happening in the real world.

  6. Sam Stoner
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 6:30 am | Permalink

    “Can someone explain why all this is fine, yet the Trump plan for Mexico is unacceptable?”

    No, no can explain why all this is fine.
    But no one is saying this is fine.

  7. Elliot Kane
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 6:36 am | Permalink

    How to deal with both economic migration and refugees seems to be one of the great problems of the 21st century, and there are no easy answers.

    Every country needs a flow of people in and out to bring in needed skills, refresh the gene pool and to bring new ideas and inventions into the country. But while a steady flow of immigrants is a good thing, too many migrants at any one time create pressure on infrastructure and services whilst also damaging social cohesion, which is worse.

    Humans being tribal by nature, a population which is well integrated and has strong social cohesion will be more harmonious and have a lower crime rate than one which is not. Conversely, a badly integrated population with a number of mutually alienated groups, suspicious of each other and with very weak social cohesion leads to some real problems. (Please note, by the way, that this applies just as much to the host population as it does to migrants. One only has to look at the number of attacks on migrant shelters across the EU to realise the trouble is far from all being one way).

    Thus, ideally, immigrants need to be allowed in at the rate in which they can be fully assimilated into the host population. This is best for migrants and host population alike.

    So no migration is bad, but so is too much migration, and the right balance can be very hard to find.

    Given Angela Merkel’s moment of epic reality-denial when she invited the entire world to come to Germany (And thus, through open borders, the whole of the EU) and the genuine refugee flows caused by too many wars and upheavals, the actual migrant flow is far beyond anything the EU, or even the whole of Europe, can adequately assimilate.

    Indeed, as numerous stories flowing out of Germany, France and Sweden, amongst others, so aptly demonstrate, the flow is beyond control, let alone assimilation.

    Fortunately, there is a solution, though not an easy one. The best way to stop migrants wanting to head to the EU (Or the US, for that matter), is to be really strict on who we let in combined with a program designed to lift the most troubled nations out of poverty and deal with any serious strife, thus making those nations more desirable places to actually live in. Yes, a decent use for the foreign aid budget!

    Looking at the US, the main problems in Mexico are the gangs and the grinding poverty that makes them so attractive. A combination of helping Mexican businesses while training the Mexican army & police force would likely do far more to stop Mexican migration into the US over the long term than any wall. If the US helps Mexico seem like a great place to live, less Mexicans will want to go to the US.

    Applied to other nations across the world, this could work just as well for the EU. And, indeed, for Britain. Looking at the harsh challenges many migrants face in getting to the EU shows how little future they think they have where they came from. If their future looked happy, who would ever risk leaky boats and people traffickers? Greater happiness where people are means less migration.

    Of course, my plan would be fiendishly difficult to implement and is most definitely one for the long term, but as I noted already, there are no easy answers to this problem.

    Sorry for the essay, John. You tend to ask some really awkward questions that require in-depth answers 🙂

  8. Mark B
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 6:48 am | Permalink

    Good morning.

    You forgot one ! It is from the Telegraph, so pretty safe.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/11344116/Revealed-Saudi-Arabias-Great-Wall-to-keep-out-Isil.html

    To answer your questions.

    Donald Trump isn’t one of ‘them’. Simple.

    The EU’s free movement policy was always considered part of the EU social construct leading to a Federal USE. Much like the USA itself. Trouble is, like so much about the EU, it does not work as it is an idea created by academics, politicians and bureaucrats who have little or no real life experience.

    I do not know. But I do know that they have been building walls for centuries to keep bad people out so there must be something in it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Wall_of_China

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian%27s_Wall

    Walls are nothing knew. I bet you house has walls, a fence, and a locked front door. Those that say we should have open borders should, in my opinion, also campaign for houses without locked doors. Of course they should be the first to try it out and let us know where they all live so we can see their ‘handy-work’ when they are out 😉

    Human rights are important. But only if my human rights are not infringed. MASS immigration does not guarantee me that fundamental right as we do not know who is coming into our country. The right to life is a fundamental right in the Human Rights Legislation. If an action is considered to endanger that right of me and my fellow citizens to that right, it is the governments primary responsibility to do all that is necessary to protect me and MY RIGHTS. If building a wall is one way then I think it should be done.

    Finally. The mainland UK has no need of a wall, we have a moat. All we need are people of both numbers and quality to man it. Under the previous Home Secretary that was never the case.

  9. SM
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 7:14 am | Permalink

    Western Europe government has allowed this terrible state of affairs to develop over decades. It has spent so much time on ‘virtue-signalling’ that it has contributed to a state of affairs that is dreadful both for those who naturally want a better life (not just economically) and for indigenous populations who perceive their own desire for peace and stability to be constantly ignored.

    I have grown to believe that the human psyche cannot handle the governance of very large swathes of physical land+populations in any lasting way. The current US political system has demonstrably – in this Presidential election – shown that North America is too vast for one Government to cope with. It appears that Russia can only be governed by a cruel dictatorship.

  10. Lifelogic
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 7:20 am | Permalink

    It seems that Carney is to stay on, according to the BBC, FT and Telegraph anyway.

    Yet another dreadful decision by this government and the ex(?) remainers May and Hammond. He clearly must go. His behaviour during the referendum was overtly political, an outrage against democracy and proved to be totally wrong too as usual. He has proved to be wrong on almost everything he has uttered or done while in the job. He has done nothing about the lack of competition in the UK banking system (0.2% for your deposit but base + 4% to 30%+ if you borrow).

    Anyway, there are lots of people who could do a far better job, for less than about 1/3 of his remuneration and a change of direction needs to be signalled anyway. Theresa should insist on a change, but she seems to get almost everything wrong. I assume this is yet another one on the list.

    HS2, Hinkley, worker/customers on company boards, gender pay reporting, silence on the bonkers Uber ruling, half the dire cabinet selection, retaining Carney, failure to cut the green crap and go for cheap reliable energy, no new runway at Gatwick…..

    Hopefully we will get some sense from the silent Hammond in three weeks, but I doubt it.

    • MartinW
      Posted November 1, 2016 at 10:01 am | Permalink

      To the list of disappointment decisions of the May government, I would add Conservative Party whipping to vote Vaz (yes, Vaz!) on to the Justice Select Committee. Guido provides the list of Conservative MPs who voted for Vaz. Honourably, John Redwood was not one of them.

  11. APL
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 7:34 am | Permalink

    JR: “Can someone explain why all this is fine, yet the Trump plan for Mexico is unacceptable?”

    Of course, the wall Europe benefited from for decades, the one Gadaffi had put in place, and he warned us would be destroyed if the international crime syndicate Obama, Clinton, Cameron and Sarkozy destroyed his regime.

    International crime syndicate goes ahead ( very probably on the orders of Saudia Arabia, channeled through their agent in the State department who it turns out has a very special relationship with Hilary Clinton ) and destroys Libya.

    Presto! An unprecedented tsunami of refugees pour across the Mediterranean into Italy.

    Well done, nitwits.

  12. Old Albion
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 7:36 am | Permalink

    The most effective barrier against unwanted immigration is not fences/walls. It is by removing the attraction factors. (see Australia)

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

      Dear Albion–Absolutely right, indeed one feels some sympathy because, we read, these people are told and really believe that they will all be given big houses and all the rest. A latter day roads paved with gold.

  13. fedupsoutherner
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 7:36 am | Permalink

    The USA has needed a wall or some kind of workable barrier between itself and Mexico for a long time. Mr Trump is a bit like Farage. He is not afraid to say what is needed and what he would like to do if he becomes president. He just doesn’t say it properly and is a bit too forceful in his opinions. The media not only in the USA but over here too have not been kind to him, again, the same as Farage. I think most of them know they speak a lot of common sense but somehow the PC speech and thoughts come out through them. We see it here. We have to be politically correct over so many things and thinking outside the box is alien and not allowed. Dogma gets rammed down the throats of all of us through the newspapers, schools, colleges, uni and the tv through the likes of David Attenborough etc.

    Europe is in a mess. On the one hand we have Merkel inviting in immigrants from wherever when hardly any are really refugees and the countries of Europe being unable to cope with it all. Borders and walls are the only way to move forward as the numbers are so great. Australia has the right idea. Try to get in illegally and you will be denied access for ever and a day. Spot on.

  14. alan jutson
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 7:45 am | Permalink

    Afraid the free entry for all experiment has failed, of course any Country needs controls on people entry, otherwise how can you plan for :
    Housebuilding
    Infrastructure Development
    Power Supply
    Education Policies
    Hospital and Health policies
    Police and Security
    Taxation Rates
    Welfare
    State Benefits and Pensions

    Without having a clue about the population total in advance, you are always left trying to play catch up, which is an expensive, inefficient, dangerous, unfair, and rather ad hock way of dealing with the situation.

  15. Anonymous
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 8:15 am | Permalink

    We once had proper passport control with and a government duty bound to uphold it.

    Now we don’t.

    We have senior state employees who think that immigration control is a wicked thing: police, doctors, even border controllers (much reduced by the government and current PM.)

    How do we change this mindset back ?

    Our island status and sense of nationhood was better than any wall, with a sense of fairness in our handling of controlled migration and asylum.

    The problem isn’t the physical security of our nation but the mental one.

    We can tell who are distorting the facts and the truth – the ones insisting that grown men are children (prominent Remainers and the BBC among them) have discredited themselves and the whole migration process and made me more convinced than ever that my decision to vote Brexit was the right one whatever it does to the price of a cup of tea.

    • Anonymous
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 8:40 am | Permalink

      We should not be dependent on walls outside of the UK for our security. The EU has proven itself incapable which is why the British people voted Leave.

  16. Janice Birch
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 8:17 am | Permalink

    EU erects borders within its member states yet mocks GB for not wanting free movement & USA for building a wall. This is the arrogance & hypocrisy which knows no bounds!

    • Ed Mahony
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 10:33 am | Permalink

      ‘EU erects borders within its member states yet mocks GB for not wanting free movement & USA for building a wall’

      – You’re making a category error between ‘free movement’ and ‘building a wall.’
      Free movement is about EU migrants. The wall is about migrants from outside the EU. Either you believe in a limit to borders or you don’t. With free movement of EU migrants, you’re getting something in return (geopolitical). In migrants from outside the EU, you’re not so much (it’s more about charity). You can debate both, both they’re essentially different categories, and not to be confused/blended as you’re doing here.

  17. hefner
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 8:22 am | Permalink

    John, what about you re-reading Matthew 7:3?

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 11:07 am | Permalink

      “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

      Nope, I don’t see how that applies.

      • hefner
        Posted October 31, 2016 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

        Indeed, my mistake, sorry: we do not have Fortress Britain, the Brexit campaign was not run essentially on immigration, only on pure economic arguments, no mention of 10^6’s immigrants inside Britain battering the doors of NHS hospitals, schools, of being benefit scroungers, no mention of 80 millions of Turks descending on Europe… All British subjects can keep their heads high and have only to be proud of their Anglo-Saxon neighbours.
        Only the continental Europeans are so vile as not to be ashamed to use this type of arguments.

        • Hope
          Posted November 1, 2016 at 7:36 am | Permalink

          Hefner, Poor contrition for being wrong. Your sentiments equally wrong in context and demonstrates your lack of humility in being wrong.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted November 1, 2016 at 8:25 am | Permalink

          I still don’t see your point here.

  18. stred
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 8:40 am | Permalink

    Meanwhile, having made Libya a trafficer’s paradise, the navies of the EUpick up economic migrants from Africa, take them to Sicily then transport them to the north and give them a bus ticket to Calais.What is going on?

  19. stred
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 8:45 am | Permalink

    Off subject, BBC is reporting that Mr Carney can choose to stay for another expensive 3 years. Who set this farce up?

    • APL
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 10:06 am | Permalink

      stred: “Who set this farce up?”

      More to the point, it strikes at the heart of the internationalist fiction that the UK can’t produce its own dimwits to run it’s own institutions.

      There is bound to be someone in the City with the ……intellect equivilent to Carney?

    • Lifelogic
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 11:51 am | Permalink

      Yet another dreadful decision from the May government.

      • Timaction
        Posted October 31, 2016 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

        Indeed. The pro Europhile who set about devaluing our currency with rate cuts and quantitative easing so they can blame Brexit for its devaluation. The BBC, Sky and ITV wrongly report this propaganda all the time. Same as the economic migrant issue and the children with beards let into the country from Calais by the leftist home office.

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted October 31, 2016 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

        Agreed, Lifelogic–Or is this just more Forward Guidance (Don’t hear much on that any more) from Carney? BTW No answer the other day how all the MPC agree with him which seems very strange to me given that what he says is such twaddle. Not the sort of thing at all one would expect to be nem. con.

  20. OhMyGarden
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 8:45 am | Permalink

    You can have a fence to your garden, with a gate, which you can leave open or locked. You can have a home with a door, locked or open but people are expected not to violate its openness.We all know where I am going with this argument. We all know where asylum seekers are going. Out of my garden gate!

  21. Ed Mahony
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 8:52 am | Permalink

    Good argument in exposing the hypocrisy of the EU. Where Trump’s proposal is different and clearly unacceptable, i think, is to get the Mexican’s to pay for the wall (by reducing their foreign aid). This is treating them like dogs but it’s also making the country more unstable, politically, as well as in terms of crime and hard and soft drugs that end up on the streets of the America.

    • Brigham
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 10:07 am | Permalink

      I was on a golfing holiday in Phoenix. My wife wanted to buy some butter in a supermarket. We asked a girl employee where it was. she couldn’t understand the word butter. As I used to be married to a Spanish woman I said, “mantequilla” this was recognised immediately. I thought of London.

      • Ed Mahony
        Posted October 31, 2016 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

        I had the same experience in LA asking for instructions to the train station – Que!

    • Roy Grainger
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 10:31 am | Permalink

      He is not proposing to pay for the wall by cutting their foreign aid, that is not at a high enough level to pay for more than 1-2% of the total cost. He would likely make them pay for it by trade tariffs on US-Mexico trade in which Mexico is massively in surplus with the USA – for example he could impose a tax on cash transfers from US banks to Mexico (from Mexicans in USA repatriating money) which are billions of $ greater than transfers the other way.

      • Ed Mahony
        Posted October 31, 2016 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

        Fine, but however he’s going to make them pay for it, it’s too Scrooge-like for my liking (I’ve experienced relative poverty back-packing in such countries and it’s not nice – to make them suffer even more by paying for the wall is just – i don’t know – wrong/barbarian-like, and just demonstrates a lack of empathy towards those across the border from you). Again, protect US interests but not at any cost – at the cost of becoming a barbarian.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted November 1, 2016 at 8:47 am | Permalink

          We have religious leaders to thank for these situations.

  22. Hope
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    What is more confusing is that Hilary Clinton was a politician in power who voted for it! Trump who now says he will act on what was promised by her and other politicians said they would do.

    In other words he will get on do the the job that she and other politicians talks about. The same could be said with immigration, terrorism and a host of other topics. Equally the same is true in the UK: Cameron talked a lot and delivered nothing. When the target is too hard it is reduced, dumbed down or withdrawn. Namely: structural deficit balanced by May 2015, first it was pinned what was being achieved to deceive, delayed and NOW withdrawn by May! Immigration cut to tens of thousands, highest amount of immigration since records began, hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants “lost to [May’s] System”, refugees, asylum seekers and health tourists not even counted. There is no official way of counting people in and out, yet we have better control over cattle and sheep!

  23. Jo Marsh
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 9:14 am | Permalink

    John, the points you raise about’walls’ are indeed relevant and justified. The groans from other EU countries are unbelievable just because we decided to put an end to uncontrolled immigration and to control our own borders etc.

    This is off-topic but extremely important, but now that CETA has been signed, albeit not ratified, this does in my opinion take the UK in the wrong direction as it puts too much power into the hands of huge corporations without any electoral consent. To my knowledge, they would be able to sue the UK government if their profits are affected. This is TTIP via the back-door as US corporations also have bases in Canada. It is unacceptable, in my opinion.

    The extremely secretive nature of EU discussions is something I for one voted against, and we will be subjected to that deal as we have not yet left the EU. I would urge government to get on with formal notification BEFORE the end of December 2016.

    etc ed

  24. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 9:19 am | Permalink

    EU-ers always cite the wars in Europe as justification for the idea of European togetherness, integration.The end of borders and national states where we are all supposed to coalesce in a loving working tolerant oneness , a dream of nirvana.

    Unfortunately, extremely selective learning of European history where eternal truths are smudged out of our consciousness by omission, alteration or lies tell a dire tale of forms of free movement of people prior to the EU and consequences. People like their own bit of turf. Their own reality.

    Naturally enough religious people filled with Absolute love and politicians wishing to ease the bitternesses of the past, play down things which have divided us, things which they know led to a cruelty beyond it could be said of Evil itself.
    That we must take Man as we find him though, is essential.

    In an overview of Europe over the past 102 years, from the vantage point of another 102 years hence, it may be wondered why Europeans after their experiences of 1914-1918…the hungry and cold years in Germany and other places in Europe from then on and the 1939-45 war , again it may be wondered what silly-billies would deliberately and under the central theme of the EU enact all those happenstances and movements afresh which precipitated all the wars and Evil in the first place.

    So, fences, guarding-fences are suddenly put up super- rapidly all over Europe as though someone shouted “Action! Man Your Guns! “This is Not a Drill! Warning! Warning! Warning Incoming! Incoming!” And some of us still wet behind the ears ask naively “Why?
    Because, we are like that. This is the nature of us. This is where we are in this thousand years of history, 500 years back and the 500 years yet to come. Accept ourselves and who we are right now!

  25. acorn
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 9:22 am | Permalink

    No, he is copying Israel’s West Bank Wall, that will be 420 miles long and 6 -8 metres high, if it ever gets finished. Israel claims its wall, is twice as high as the Berlin Wall was. The Trump wall, he claims, will be 1,000 miles of concrete and 900 miles of natural rock wall. He reckons it will be 10 – 13 metres high and cost $8 – 12 billion.

    Trump doesn’t say how deep the foundations will go. Israel found out that Hamas can build tunnels faster than it can build the Gaza Strip wall. Buy shares in Cement makers and associated industries. And, tunnel boring machines. Also, download a copy of R.E.M.’s “It’s The End Of The World As We Know It (And I Feel Fine)”. This is not going to end well. 🙁

    • acorn
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 10:19 am | Permalink

      BTW. JR, your attempts at trying to convert every random scrap of tabloid news, into an anti-EU weapon; are getting more contrived by the week. It is going to get harder to come up with fresh headlines over the next two years. I think the remainers are going to put the leavers under siege, Roman style. Inflict some economic pain until Brexit surrenders.

      • Peter D Gardner
        Posted October 31, 2016 at 11:01 pm | Permalink

        So acorn, you say the Remainers who claim to be acting in Britain’s interests intend to inflict so much damage on the object of their love that it will surrender. You sound like the kind of person who would beat his wife until she agrees to say, “I love you”.

        • acorn
          Posted November 1, 2016 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

          Remainers acting in who’s interest exactly??? It’s all about the politics of winning Peter 24 hours a day. Everything else comes second, particularly at Westminster level.

    • Roy Grainger
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 10:33 am | Permalink

      You have been taken in by the anti-Trump propaganda, if he gets elected nothing much will happen, the President is tightly constrained by the House and Senate with limited scope for independent action.

  26. English Pensioner
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 10:05 am | Permalink

    Australia has just made it clear that anyone who enters Australia illegally will be deported and NEVER allowed to enter Australia again, even as tourists. They would have broken Australian law, and as such would never be allowed in.
    It they can do it, why can’t we. As a start we could start with the Syrian ‘Child’ who how says that the is 22.
    A question that I have bee unable to find an answer is whether we take all the details such as fingerprints, photographs, etc of immigrants when they are admitted? Or does their ‘human rights’ prevent us doing this?

  27. AMoatPoint
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 10:14 am | Permalink

    “…Trump’s anti migrant walls.”
    So your car’s outer shell is anti-pedestrian? I guess it is if a pedestrian uninvitedly decides to bang his head against it.

  28. Bob
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 10:20 am | Permalink

    “Can someone explain why all this is fine, yet the Trump plan for Mexico is unacceptable?”

    It’s quite obviously double standards.

    The issue is that the establishment and the MSM have been widely infiltrated by useful idiots with the power to hire & fire. You will not find many high profile individuals that are prepared to speak against the current zeitgeist. We’ve seen time & again how a careless word can end a career.

    MSM jounalists continue to overlook anything that plays badly for the so called “progressive” agenda. They give maximum exposure to people like Tony Blair or Peter Mandelson or Poly Toynbee, yet they demonise people like Nigel Farage who speak truth to power. Notice how they seized upon the utterly ridiculous Marmite story and the way the Nissan decision was derided as some kind of sleazy backroom deal.

    However in the privacy of a voting booth people can vote according to their true conscience, which makes one wonder how long this will be allowed to continue (if Remainers get their wish).

  29. Prigger
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    It might be an idea if the British critics of Trump would actually hear him out. Realise he only recently started using a teleprompter. His speeches were one-to-one using American, emphasis: American language and mannerisms and understood as rough-edged local-in-America truths devoid of the word by word guarded utterances of politicians who fear being taken out of context. He was speaking very much in-context and directly and casually to his American family.

    Very intelligent journalists and politicians here, unless they are acting, really can’t and don’t hear him. Their comments, so lucid, intelligent, well-educated on the surface show again, unless their acting is supreme, evidence our schools , even the most expensive, are grossly inadequate.
    But such commenters and commentators make most of us feel here and in America supremely well-educated and intelligent beyond our innermost fears and feelings of educational inadequacy hammered into us in our schools by dim teachers. We understand the entirety of his narrative. We understand, remarkably, his very American usage as though it were our own. Perhaps it is our own. British English language as was.

  30. Oggy
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    I was always under the impression that ‘Freedom of movement’ of people in Europe was for EU member countries citizens only, not for anybody just to walk in without any authorisation or documentation whatsoever. As soon as a migrant/refugee leaves the first safe country they enter for an onward destination they are no longer a refugee but an economic migrant. Whatever happened to the ‘Dublin agreement’ ?

    The fences are a reaction to Mrs Merkels call- ‘all refugees welcome here’ – she will regret saying that at next year’s German elections. The EU is still compounding the migrant situation by giving all migrants a free taxi ride from Libya to Italy.

    Australia is attempting to make it law this week that any migrant arriving illegally by boat will be barred for life from receiving any type of Australian visa. So how about it Mr Juncker and Mr Tusk ?

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted November 1, 2016 at 8:44 am | Permalink

      In principle it’s for all persons legally present within the territory of the EU.

      • Oggy
        Posted November 3, 2016 at 10:52 am | Permalink

        Hi Denis,
        ‘Legally present’ – that’s my point, they are ILLEGAL immigrants so shouldn’t qualify for freedom of movement and be able wander round the EU unchallenged.

  31. Robin Smith
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 10:48 am | Permalink

    What bigger wall than the one with bricks made out of ‘Free Trade Agreements’?

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted November 1, 2016 at 2:42 am | Permalink

      Dear Robin–If the EU quit its obsession with a tariff wall and replaced it with a real one that would be something.

  32. formula57
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 11:07 am | Permalink

    Trump’s wall is intended to be a permanent feature and comes with remarks inter alia to the effect he wishes to keep out bad people amongst the Mexicans whereas as we know the European barriers are temporary expedients to facilitate better handling of people who are very welcome to enter the EU in due course. The effect might be the same, but the intentions are quite different, so we are expected to believe.

    • Peter D Gardner
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 11:03 pm | Permalink

      Where did you get the idea that the walls in the EU – whose policy now, by the way, is to strengthen its external borders as soon as possible – intends to admit all these migrants in due course? When is due course?

  33. a-tracy
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 11:11 am | Permalink

    I have never supported ID cards on liberty arguments, however, I’m beginning to think this is a better solution than walls.
    I think we have enough problems in Europe not to meddle in American politics. However, Hilary Clinton was reported in the Independent 21/10/16 “Clinton has made no secret of her views on Brexit – she doesn’t much like it, and she is likely to follow the line set by Obama that Britain will be ‘at the back of the queue’ for a trade deal”.

  34. Trumpeter
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 11:17 am | Permalink

    The voting has begun in America. They call it early voting. In Texas, the turnout stands at 50% ( fifty percent ) up on the last General Election. It is put down to people starting to vote who have never voted in the lives..and of people who have not voted for decades. The majority are wearing red baseball caps , the symbol of a Trump supporter. Like a uniform. Build that wall!

  35. lojolondon
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    John, I feel fine about the walls – the EU is totally misguided in every sense, and far from fit for purpose. There is an adage that a country can have a welfare state or open borders, but you can never have both. Europe apparently has chosen.

  36. Antisthenes
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 11:31 am | Permalink

    As laudable a policy of free movement and open borders is as we are seeing that it can bring with it some very undesirable consequences. Especially if the policy has been implemented without the building in of mechanisms to deal with all eventualities. It can be economically and socially damaging when the whole point of the policy is to effect the opposite.

    When circumstances change then the policy has to be adaptable enough to change with it. The EU and the USA are seeing a considerable change in circumstances as immigration is now happening on a scale that is not enhancing their economies and cultures but damaging them. This eventuality was not planned for so now solutions are hastily and belatedly being sort and some implemented but are being undermined by liberal/progressive sentiment. Immigration is like a river when it’s flow is contained within it’s banks all is well. If it overflows then the only thing that can be done is to throw up defences to mitigate any flooding that may occur. Some disdain that approach, those on the high moral ground can do so being reasonably immune from the consequences even benefiting from it often at the ballot box.

    The EU did not open it’s borders to those who were not members of it for the simple reason they were not committed to contributing what is necessary to benefit from being allowed entry. The policy when initially introduced it was envisaged that it would be a gradual and an orderly process used to enhance wealth creation, to redistribute wealth to those who shared common goals, had the same aspirations, were not too dissimilar culturally and shared similar standards and values.

    Refugees, economic migrants, skilled labour shifts within the EU itself and even Brexit are changing and challenging that dynamic. EU members are finding that open borders and free movement being the prerogative of Brussels and not national governments is costing them dear so are erecting fences or leaving or will leave. The lesson the EU is being taught and all other governments who do the same should heed is that if you take too much power to yourself and centralise it you are designing your own demise. Local needs of self determination and local democratic decision making will in the end resent you and reject you.

  37. rose
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 11:37 am | Permalink

    You might have included, Mr R, the defensive arrangements on French soil, both at Calais and on the Italian border.

    The EU has been disastrous for our security: first by expanding into Russia’s sphere of influence and making them feel threatened and humiliated; secondly, by undermining NATO with absurd ambitions to have separate EU defence; and thirdly, by doing away with borders and giving out the message that anyone from Africa or Asia is welcome to come and live off charity and the taxpayer. In practice, this means: just land in Spain, Italy, or Greece and you are guaranteed a place in England.

    Europe is hopelessly divided. We cannot stand as one on this, as the Australians have. The Snowflakes and No Borders anarchists, the charities, the human rights industry, the governing classes, big business – all want unlimited immigration. The rest of us are appalled by the invasion and want it stopped. Until there is clear direction at the helm, as there would be in a formal war, this chaotic and contradictory situation will continue, with governments, charities, media, and lawyers encouraging the invasion, and peaceful law-abiding populations desperately crying out for sanity.

  38. wait forthe ricochet
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 11:42 am | Permalink

    No walls or borders needed if we’re all
    one big global country. See how it’s working.

    • Pontius Pilate Trump
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

      The wall works well around the Vatican City

  39. Richard Butler
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    I’ve spotted a further duality in the remainer narrative.
    On the one hand they say we make most of our own law, that the role of Brussels law making is grossly over-stated by ‘swivel-eyed Brexiteers’, and then in the next breath they say that we will stagger under the weight of having to review / debate 40 years of Brussels law.

    At every turn they ignore facts and evidence, no wonder they were cowed by project fear fantasy.

  40. HighOnIt
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 11:48 am | Permalink

    Failure to understand what Mr Trump actually says is endemic, in the UK at least. It is also a mystery. A mystery in one sense equivalent to why such a large percentage of people in the UK are ill with diabetes, cancer, heart disease, and a host of other ailments serious and less so; yet, we have the very best National Health Service, Housing, home heating, food and water on the planet.

    Maybe we should list amongst the nation’s maladies, mental-comprehension- lingusitic disorders. But it still does not answer the question why all this is possible under such health-making environmental and political positives.
    Something has gone wrong. We must feel around for a person who retains one eye

  41. Richard Butler
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    Important piece evidence to be used in debate:

    From the Full Fact website;

    Was the pound overvalued before the EU referendum?
    Conclusion

    This is correct. Before the EU referendum, the IMF said that the pound was overvalued in 2015.

    https://fullfact.org/economy/exchange-rates-and-imf/

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted November 1, 2016 at 8:40 am | Permalink

      Doesn’t that mean UK consumers who are now paying more because of the lower pound are just giving up unwarranted gains they enjoyed previously?

    • anon
      Posted November 1, 2016 at 10:05 pm | Permalink

      Also lookup changes in SDR basket. The GBP fraction decreased, other countries were increased, i think China.

  42. rose
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    I know Lifelogic has no time for Matthew Paris but he is the one person who has dared to come out and say – as far back as 2002 – that the Geneva Convention is not fit for purpose. Until we deal with this fact we will be inundated.

    In the eighties, onl the upper classes came as “political refugees”; the lower orders were rejected as “economic refugees”. It wasn’t long before the lower orders cottoned on to this and started reclassifying themselves. Hence the problem we have today.

    The other problem we have is that the larger our population gets, the more “refugees” we are expected to take. It is worked out on GDP and population size, not land area. So Canada is held up as an example of virtue to shame us!

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/2002/12/bogus-asylumseekers-are-not-the-problem-its-the-millions-of-genuine-refugees-we-should-worry-ab/

  43. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    It’s simple enough. The EU aims to become a Federal State and needs to decide who belongs and who does not belong. If the constituent Member States won’t agree on that, the Federal State won’t be formed.

    Whether or not a Federal State can be formed depends on which Member States wish to join and whether they comprise a contiguous and defensible territory. That is why each Member State in the EuroZone or legally committed to join it should hold a consultative referendum to determine whether its people want to join a Federal State.

    Donald Trump is luckier. He already has a defensible Federal State with well defind borders. Why would he not want to build a wall?

  44. NA
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    Western military intelligence is acting as a ‘hidden hand’ in many western countries

    >
    Which means effectively controlling the media on all issues related to ‘terrorism’ and geo-strategy (foreign policy). Most of the general public are completely unaware of this as most take no deep interest in politics and the media.

    • Mitchel
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

      An increasing number are,fortunately,thanks to alternative media.

    • CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
      Posted October 31, 2016 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

      “”Western military intelligence is acting as a “hidden hand” in many western countries….effectively controlling the media””

      I get my information from immigrants.

  45. brian
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    Fences and walls are appropriate if necessary to stop illegal entry into a country.

  46. Denis Cooper
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

    Not entirely off-topic:

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-brexit-moscovici-idUKKCN12S1ES

    “The four freedoms that underpin the European Union’s internal market work together, EU Economic and Financial Affairs Commissioner Pierre Moscovici said on Friday when asked about negotiations with Britain about trade arrangements after its planned exit from the EU.”

    However some would disagree with his assertion that the four freedoms “work together”; this German economist takes a directly contrary view, namely that “from an economic standpoint there is no compelling link between free access to the labour market and the rest of the single market”.

    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/10/10/punishing-britain-with-a-tough-brexit-will-harm-everyone/

    “The British government’s plans to restrict the freedom of movement of labour for EU citizens without giving up access to the single market for goods and capital has been widely criticised as “cherry-picking”. This view is popular, but wrong. It does the notion of integration a disservice: depicting the free movement of goods and capital as “cherries”, with the free movement of labour as the bitter pill to be swallowed in return, will increase resentment of economic migrants. In any case, from an economic standpoint there is no compelling link between free access to the labour market and the rest of the single market.”

    As do these authors:

    http://bruegel.org/2016/08/europe-after-brexit-a-proposal-for-a-continental-partnership/

    “As a political project the single market consists of all four freedoms. Arguably, freedom of movement of workers, whereby EU citizens are entitled to look for a job in another EU country and to work there without needing a work permit, constitutes the element that makes the single-market part of the EU into a political project. Granting access to the domestic labour market to some 510 million citizens is a significant political choice and a powerful symbol of integration amongst EU countries. It is this political project that the UK electorate has effectively rejected.

    From a purely economic viewpoint, however, goods, services and capital can be freely exchanged in a deeply integrated market without free movement of workers, though not entirely without some labour mobility. It is also possible for capital to move freely and for banking services to be provided across borders without free movement. Free movement of workers is, thus, not indispensable for the smooth functioning of economic integration in goods, services and capital. On the other hand, some degree of labour mobility is an essential counterpart of the free flow of goods, services and capital. Firms that operate in foreign countries need to be able to transfer workers abroad, at least for temporary periods, in order to produce efficiently The four freedoms of the European single market are therefore closely economically connected, but not inalienable for deep economic integration. Free movement of workers can be separated from the rest, but some temporary labour mobility is needed.”

    And as did one of the authors separately, a senior German politician in Merkel’s own party, Norbert Roettgen:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-08/merkel-lawmaker-sees-flexibility-on-migration-in-brexit-bargain

    “Free movement of workers between EU member countries, the core element that drove the immigration debate in the U.K. before the exit referendum in June, is a political rather than an economic project and should be negotiable, Roettgen said.

    “We can separate that,” he said. A condition would be to accept EU rules and their legal enforcement by the bloc’s institutions, he said.”

  47. Newmania
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    Ok so what is John trying to suggest , I think it is that nasty Liberal Europe is full of big fat overpaid hypocrites who are not one jot better than the much abused Donald Trump ( of whom he generally seems to approve ). Hungary`s right wing populist government , which is thrice mentioned seems singularly poor example of said nasty Liberal Europe , more an ally of Trump but in any case the wall isn`t the problem .
    There is already a serious fence between Mexico and the US and were Trump to suggest that illegal immigration should be prioritised and funded as a sensible measure in a country characterised by racial division I would `t personally have the slightest objection
    When he couches it as an attack on Mexicans who he has accused of being drug dealers and rapists then I feel rather differently about it. Perhaps Mr Redwood thinks this sort of language is acceptable? I do hope not (and to be fair I would be astonished if he did ).

    The problem with Trump is Trump

    Reply I am not a Trump supporter and do not agree with all that he has said, nor am I a Clinton supporter. I am neutral on the US election as it is their decision to make

  48. Margaret
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

    I totally agree with you, but Mr Trump is a little forthright and is not as careful as he could be with his reasoning . Hypocritical , however it is , the EU dress it up better . Double think!

  49. Jumeirah
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    I don’t care if they have built and continue to build walls and fences throughout Europe and I REALLY don’t care about that!!! What I care about is that we get our Sovereignty and our Country back so that can put in place a proper Visa Procedure to fill position where we have skill shortages. Visas should be granted for 3 yr maximum which will give British Employers the opportunities to fill positions in the short term with foreign workers whilst British Nationals are trained up. It would be up to the prospective Employer as “‘Sponsor” to process the visa requirement direct to the Home Office who would then vet the application and ‘grant or deny”. Sponsorship would be for 6 months, 1 year or 3 depending upon the classification of the job ALWAYS cognizant of the fact that the Employer is duty bound to train up a British National to take over that job and no more visas for that particular job if they don’t.
    Anyway what’s really important is this: I thought the UK was already a member of the WTO (albeit a voiceless one). If that is the case Mr. Redwood why is it – quote Daily Express “‘ the WTO said Britain could not leave the EU until it had reached an agreement with its 163 members”‘. in other words: when we leave the EU do we then have to start to negotiate with the WTO members to re-join THEIR Club or have I entirely missed the point in what the Daily express quote.

  50. Anna
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    PvL:

    I think it is unfair of you to censure the UK over freedom of movement: England is the second most populated country in the EU and has as many EU residents here as there are British nationals in the whole of the EU. The stagnant economies in a number of EU countries, largely owing to problems within the Eurozone, and the fact that English is a widely-used international language have brought great numbers to some areas of the country which has put pressure on schools and hospitals. Many teachers and health professionals, unable to cope with the stresses, have resigned and moved elsewhere which has exacerbated the problem.

    Many workers from eastern Europe are in receipt of in-work benefits which they are able to send home where the buying power is 10 times what it is in the UK. (£I billion is remitted to Poland annually, money that is not circulated in the UK economy.) This means that they can afford to work for less than the minimum wage which pleases employers but which has depressed wages for low-paid British workers.

    With regard to refugees: the policy of the government is to support refugees by creating safe havens close to their homeland to which most refugees wish to return. The UK government has spent more than any other country – about £1 billion – to provide humane living conditions and schools in these areas.

    The UK has over many centuries provided a refuge for the persecuted of European and other states. We take no lectures from anyone about our responsibilities towards refugees.

  51. Kevin
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    FYI, it seems the Obama Administration is in the process of building a “wall” on the Jordanian border.

    Apparently, the “U.S. Department of State Official Blog” contains the following quote, under the post, “Standing with Jordan Through U.S. Security Assistance” (13/1/2016, emphasis added):

    “With today’s challenges in the region in mind, the Department of State and DoD are also closely working with our Jordanian partners to expedite aid and access to equipment to support Jordan’s role in the Counter-ISIL Coalition. Among the support we have delivered to Jordan since February 2015, the United States has:…

    Progressed toward completing the Jordan Border Security Program, an integrated border security surveillance, detection, and interdiction system along Jordan’s land borders.”

  52. Roy Grainger
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    I see Mr Carney has graciously decided to spend three more years with us. Truly we are blessed. Another bout of QE to celebrate ?

  53. rose
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 10:06 pm | Permalink

    On your question about double standards: you will have noticed by now that there is one standard for Mr Trump and another for everyone else. This applies on both sides of the Atlantic. So, New York Democrat though he is, we all have a different standard on treatment of women, for example, when applied to Messrs Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton. Similarly, when Mrs Obama talks about going low and high, only Mr Trump is held to go low. Everyone else goes high. Finally, although Mrs Clinton might well land us in a war with China and Russia at the same time, only Mr Trump makes people nervous about fingers on buttons.

    When it comes to walls, and welcoming refugees, all I can say is don’t encourage millions of people to come and live in a Western European welfare state unless you are confident that is what the people who have built up the welfare state want; i.e. that they no longer want to live in a Western European welfare state themselves. You can’t have open borders and a welfare state. Why don’t Western European politicians and charities realize this?

  54. rose
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

    PS by Mr Johnson I mean LBJ.

  55. CorbinCrisp
    Posted October 31, 2016 at 11:15 pm | Permalink

    Orgreave should have been addressed by the Home Secretary. More so “The Enemy Within” taunt. It was felt as referencing Yorkshire folk and others as something other than British. References to “Danegeld” by the late Tory PM and references on a TV General Election show by a still alive Tory, a Grandee “The Celts and the Saxons cannot both be in charge of the country at the same time..” was not universally understood. Allegories and metaphors if this be what they were and used in good faith sometimes need unravelling.
    An apology or at least a recognition by the PM for Everything, irrespective of her own non-involvement in Anything, would lift a darkness from mining communities which has followed them like a black angel even unto the surface light. ‘Nough pseudo-amateur poetry. Say Sorry!

  56. APL
    Posted November 1, 2016 at 7:53 am | Permalink

    Peter van Leeuwen: “Not enough adequate housing and services was a matter of policy choices by your own government, ”

    Why doesn’t Holland build more houses for the migrants, Peter?

  57. Martin
    Posted November 1, 2016 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

    Re Mexico – what some forget is that there is a balancing flow of cash from the USA to Mexico to pay for the illegal drugs.

    For some reason conservatives place great emphasis on illegal imports but not the cash exports to fund these imports.

    Re EU – one we leave it will be no more our concern that what other countries such as Morocco or Singapore etc do about immigration except of course we have that land border with Eire to contemplate !

  58. Mark B
    Posted November 1, 2016 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

    Good evening.

    Once again you refuse to put up one of my posts. Why ? Yes it was a little long, but no longer than some who put up multiple posts and usually similar to the ones they have been posting for years. Yes it had links, and I know you do not like them as you have to verify them. But those links were factual and in keeping with your article. One was from the Telegraph and the other two Wikipedia about Hadrian’s wall and the Great Wall of China.

    No names where mentioned or anything that could be construed as offensive or libelous. And in anycase, you could have just as easily edited it out.

    My only conclusion can be, is that you would rather have people put up links to their sites, which make rather dubious and false claims so long as it fits with your own beliefs, rather than have someone disagree with you.

    How terribly shallow.

    Whether you post this or not, or even care to make comment I too do not care. You would have read it.

    As to the claim that you are too busy and sometimes posts get put up late, all I can say is, that you did say sometime ago that you would limit the number of posts some people make. To date I am still waiting for you to do this as it is difficult to read everyones posts past the usual suspects who put up multiple posts on the same thing time after time.

    All I ask is that you keep to your previous word, and give free and fair hearing to all those whether you agree with them or not.

    Simple

  59. James
    Posted November 2, 2016 at 4:45 am | Permalink

    Mr Trump talks about the wall with Mexico as if he will lay the first brick.

    The realty is that the wall is already more than one-third built: started by George W Bush, extended by Barack H Obama. It’s presently over 600 miles in length, situated in segments along the most populous areas along the near-2,000 mile land border, with fences, walls and other barriers present at official crossings, densely populated areas, and even extending out into the Pacific Ocean on the border with San Diego and Tijuana.

    Many US States oppose “more wall” not least because Mexico is the principal trading partner for over half of them and the wall sends out very negative trade signals.

    Mexican net migration to the USA has been negative in recent years.

    It’s a pity that Mr Redwood couldn’t care enough to look a little deeper into the facts of the matter before propelling Mr Trump’s rhetoric and publishing this sloppy comment on the subject of political barrier-building.

  • 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