Controlling our borders


The government is right to argue that we should not be part of the EU’s new quota system for migrants arriving in Italy. It is right to help with the humanitarian task of rescuing people from the seas, and to stress the need to track down and prosecute the cruel traffickers who charge for people to embark on poor boats and risk their lives.

The government is also right on the broader policy issue. Many of the new arrivals in Italy are economic migrants, not asylum seekers, If the EU gives all of them who make it citizenship it becomes a reward for the traffickers, a green light for the expansion of their business. Economic migrants we help rescue should not queue jump or be given EU rights on arrival, if we wish to stop this lethal trade.

Fortunately the UK does have its opt out from Criminal Justice measures so we can decline to be part of any quota scheme brought forward under this legal base. It just shows how important it is to opt out and to keep our veto.

It also, however, reminds us of the continuing problems over the free movement of people. If other countries in the EU do decide to increase their  acceptance of new migrants and grant them full rights, then in due course they become eligible for the EU movement rights. It is a timely reminder of how we need both a government that will use an opt our or veto when needed, and will then seek a new deal to  tackle the underlying problem of free movement.


  1. Mark B
    May 14, 2015

    Good morning.

    Freedom of movement is enshrined in the Single Market, so it will effect all 31 members of the EEA.

    The EU Commission has been very adept at moving the goal posts. Also, other countries, and not just EU / EEA member ones, may grant some of these economic migrants citizenship which would circumvent the UK’s opt-out. It is this that I think is more likely to happen as other countries will not be able to handle the numbers of people involved.

    To discourage people from coming too Europe, Africa and other places must have as near the same levels of living standards. This cannot be achieved whilst we are still running a customs union and effectively driving Africans into poverty. We also need to invest in order to create jobs and wealth.

    In short, we need to look and deal with the root causes of this crisis. In the meantime, we need to send these people back, destroy the boats, and ‘deal’ with the traffickers who are profiting from the misery of others.

    1. Mark
      May 14, 2015

      It is not sufficient to send these economic migrants, who are almost exclusively not Libyan but merely used the country as part of a transit route, back to Libya where they will simply try again, but rather, right back to their countries of origin, where they can tell their stories about the mistreatment they endured until picked up from a leaky boat, and the money they have wasted along the way.

    2. A different Simon
      May 14, 2015

      This is very true .

      The West has had it’s pound of flesh from Africa .

      Even today we induce corrupt African leaders to do deals to put their population in debt peonage in perpetuity .

      How much better would Africa be if so many of it’s doctors and nurses had not moved over here to work in our NHS ?

      What about au pairs from the Philippines who sacrifice their relationship with their own children to go and look after a career persons children in the West .

      One could say both pairs of parents are getting their priorities wrong but the perception of quick money causes people to lose sight of what is really important .

      A points based immigration system cannot address this flight of human capital .

      Can’t wait for an African leader with real balls to come along and tell the west where to go .

    3. Mike Stallard
      May 14, 2015

      How very true.
      How very not going to happen.
      To do that, you need self government and a Prime Minister like Tony Abbott.
      Dream on!

  2. Lifelogic
    May 14, 2015

    I see that someone at the EU has announced that none that are rescued will be returned. Is this because they want to increase the numbers coming and thus drowning? Or is it because they are too stupid to see the inevitable effect their statement will surely have?

    There seems to be endless anger against the traffickers and an assumption that the trafficked are innocent victims. Clearly the trafficked are the ones funding and driving these operations. The traffickers are not forcing people to go they are in the main economic migrants. I have huge sympathy with them and would probably do the same in their position. Nevertheless, encouraging yet more to take these risks, as the EU seems to be doing, is surely an evil thing to do.

    You say: “If other countries in the EU do decide to increase their acceptance of new migrants and grant them full rights, then in due course they become eligible for the EU movement rights.” What are the time scales for “in due course” in this context?

    1. Lifelogic
      May 14, 2015

      It seems (from Tim Farron) that the Libdems are not, after all, going to consider changing their satirical name.

      I would have thought the “Anti-Liberal & Anti-Democratic Party” would have been ideal and have the advantage of totally honesty for a change.

    2. Iain Gill
      May 14, 2015

      Well in the UK asylum seekers go through a process which can end up with them getting “indefinite leave to remain” in about 2 years, and a full British passport after about 5. Once they have a full passport from a European country they can go anywhere they want in Europe. I doubt there is anything stopping Italy just giving them all Italian passports straight away, rather than a few years delay, in the full and certain knowledge that they will then mostly clear off to other places like the UK.

    3. Denis Cooper
      May 14, 2015

      It would be instantaneous for all of the present EU member states apart from Croatia, where there are still transitional restrictions in force. Once any of the other 26 countries has said to somebody from outside the EU “Congratulations, you are now one of our citizens” they can leave that country and come here if they so wish, and our Parliament has for the time being relinquished the legal power to do anything to prevent that. Moreover in no case has Parliament seen fit to ask the citizens of this country directly whether they are happy to have that original arrangement with just eight other countries, the arrangement which was directly approved through the 1975 referendum, extended to another country. Not for Greece in 1981 under the premiership of Thatcher, right through to Croatia in 2013 under Cameron. Despite Hague’s much vaunted “referendum lock” law, which carefully provides a blanket exemption for all accession treaties.

    4. bigneil
      May 14, 2015

      Time scales = as soon as possible to get here for free life on the taxpayer. – just a pity that the people who have paid in for 40+yr can’t get a free life on the people coming. All this will not end well. I hope Mr Cameron feels the annihilation of a whole nation is worth it. He will be so proud of his achievements.

  3. Mondeo Man
    May 14, 2015

    The government can do nothing about mass immigration so long as we are in the EU.

    A person granted aslyum in Italy becomes OUR citizen if they wish to come here.

    The Bank of England Governor confirms what many of us think. That wages are not increasing with mass immigration.

    None of you can explain how importing poor people into working class neighbourhoods does anything but reduce living standards in every way.

    Jerry has joked (in a previous comment to me) that willing graduates from the EU will clean wharehouses for minimum wages and he is right.

    In the meantime house prices and rents sky rocket. And they sky rocket *because* of the policy of mass immigration.

    It’s such a pity that the only party speaking sense on this issue – UKIP – is on the way out.

    1. Jerry
      May 14, 2015

      @Mondeo Man; “The Bank of England Governor confirms what many of us think. That wages are not increasing with mass immigration.”

      Wages for many are not raising even without migration, what ever the numbers, because when a company can off-shore production, pay much lower wages, then ship halfway around the world back to the UK cheaper than they can pay the wages bills here in the UK – or indeed in some parts of the EU. A product made and sold here in the UK that might need to have a list price circa £300 by the time it hits the retail stores might likely be circa £225 if made in eastern EU member states (or candidate countries, like Turkey) whilst when made in China the retail price is likely to be circa £150.

      “None of you can explain how importing poor people into working class neighbourhoods does anything but reduce living standards in every way.”

      Of course it doesn’t, but who said living standards are always going to rise, although unless you are suggesting these migrants are living on benefits it does suggest that there is employment so one has to ask why can migrants arrive in an area and find employment (yes perhaps low waged, but still higher than JSA) but the locals can’t….or won’t?

      “Jerry has joked (in a previous comment to me) that willing graduates from the EU will clean wharehouses for minimum wages and he is right. “

      That comment was made in all seriousness.

      In the meantime house prices and rents sky rocket. And they sky rocket *because* of the policy of mass immigration. “

      Except that they were rocketing long before 1997, I can only assume you do not remember the house price/mortgage bubbles of the 1980s and early 1990s…

      It’s such a pity that those political parties, employers organisations and NGOs etc. speaking sense on this issue have been drowned out by a single party using scapegoats, fear, and simplistic arguments.

      Reply Average wages are now rising more than prices. The average is brought down to the extent that the economy is generating more lower paid jobs, so it implies that more are now enjoying reasonable pay rises. If you have a skill in short supply, like brick laying, then wage growth can be good.

      1. Jerry
        May 15, 2015

        @JR reply; “so it implies that more are now enjoying reasonable pay rises.”

        Well yes, but then being paid the NMW is a rise compared to JSA.

        “If you have a skill in short supply, like brick laying, then wage growth can be good.”

        I agree with what you say, but my point is that a lot of the people complaining about stagnant wages are the unskilled/low-skilled who are having to compete for jobs in companies (and indeed sometimes whole industries) were it is still cheaper to off-shore and them import. Nothing is going to change unless at least two of the following happens, wage/costs levels equalise, energy costs equalise, or the UK/EU puts up trade barriers to encourage/require regrowth of our own manufacturing sectors, that last option is very unlikely to happen so will it be the BRIC wages/energy costs that will rise or western European costs that fail or at least flat-line for how ever long?

      2. Edward2
        May 15, 2015

        Your opinion is also now refuted by the Governor of the Bank of England, Jerry.
        I realise you are attempting to come across all liberal and anti racist but the facts remain.
        The millions who have recently arrived here have depressed domestic wages and added to the pressure on prices in the housing market.

        Just consider that for someone from an Eastern European nation our minimum wage is several times better than their average wage.
        Doing menial jobs whether with a degree or not can be advantageous for them.
        They are in the main, enterprising young people who find employment or create their own, but the problems arise when politicians fail to provide the infrastructure needed for this open door policy which they have agreed to.

        1. Jerry
          May 15, 2015

          @Edward2; “Your opinion is also now refuted by the Governor of the Bank of England,”

          He said said non such thing – although you would never know it by the way the eurosceptic/phobic media reported his interview on BBC R4 Today… On being asked directly about “[the UK] sucking so much cheap foreign labour” Mr Carney replied “Well I would really dampen down that explanation”. Perhaps Edward2 you should pay more attention whilst enjoying your morning cornflakes, assuming that you even bother listening to R4 (somehow I doubt it), or at least not just take the ‘interpretation’ offered by the right-wing biased press as gospel. 🙁

          Mr Carney seemed far more concerned about the UK’s basic willingness to work (now vastly improved) and the UK’s productivity gap (still not as good as our near competitors).

          “I realise you are attempting to come across all liberal and anti racist but the facts remain.”

          Oh look, the filthy pots and pans are calling the kettle dusty again,. sorry, I’m not the one constantly using migrants as scapegoats.

          “Just consider that for someone from an Eastern European nation our minimum wage is several times better than their average wage.”

          Yes and their Eastern European wage is several times better than those of the BRIC nations (even if you add the shipping costs), from where many of the products we buy as consumers will come from if our (labour) costs are to high.

        2. Edward2
          May 16, 2015

          Yet another know it all, I’m never wrong post from you.
          There really is no need for your very agressive, sarcastic and provocative posts.
          I wonder if you ever speak face to face to people in your daily life the way you write on here.
          An unecessarily rude post

          1. Jerry
            May 16, 2015

            @Edward2; “I wonder if you ever speak face to face to people in your daily life the way you write on here.”

            More filthy pots and pans! But no, I have no need to, as no one would speak to me how you do. What ever…

          2. Edward2
            May 17, 2015

            If ever a post proves my point about the way you write then here it is.

          3. Jerry
            May 17, 2015

            @Edward2; Perhaps if you checked your facts you would not get so upset when shown up as totally wrong! You accused me of being wrong, trying to be abusive by the use of perceived political allegiances or leanings to boot, you even accused someone else of saying something he plainly did not, as you would have known had you bothered to check those fact at their source (the actual BBC interview/transcript) rather than taking a europhobic press report as the gospel truth…

          4. Edward2
            May 18, 2015

            I listened to the whole of Mark Carneys speech live.
            Perhaps you should go back and find it online and have a listen before you embarrass yourself further.

  4. agricola
    May 14, 2015

    At risk of boring everyone I will repeat a suggestion from an earlier post. Everything you say on this subject is true, but we do need a long term solution.

    We have the UN, the EU, and the countries of North Africa who could with a will sort the problem. Create a state like Israel, Gaza, or Liberia on the coast of North Africa in which all these refugees can re- start their lives. I am well aware of the difficulties and all the potential pitfalls, but what are the UN and EU about if they cannot tackle a problem such as this. Could be a perfect opportunity for our Mr Blair.

    I might add that this sort of problem and the Nepalese earthquakes are where our generous overseas aid should be directed. It might make the vast sums involved politically more acceptable to the electorate than propping up dubious regimes and buying favours around the World.

  5. Cheshire Girk
    May 14, 2015

    Its my guess that we will end up by accepting some of the migrants, maybe not the quota proposed for us, but a way will be found to put the pressure on us despite our ‘opt out’.

    1. Cheshire Girl
      May 14, 2015

      I apologise for the mis spelling of my user name. I should read my posts more thoroughly before posting!

      1. stred
        May 17, 2015

        Thanks for increasing my word list. A girk is a nerd that rises through the ranks to a chief nerd, or alternatively a brain protein.

    2. bigneil
      May 14, 2015

      There will be no “pressure” – as soon as they have any EU papers – they can – and will – walk in here to a lifetime of everything on the taxpayer. We are to become slaves.

  6. Peter van Leeuwen
    May 14, 2015

    Britain, with its tabloid ministers and preparing for its referendum could be allowed some one-liners I suppose, as long as it will pull its weight in many other ways, concerning this migration problem.
    After it attacked Libya, which precipitated some of the current mess, it is a bit too easy to walk away and leave all problems to the Italians. Britain could offer more equipment to patrol the Mediterranean, offer more negotiating power with North African countries, help more to target human trafficking, etc. etc.
    Even if Britain considers itself “on its way out” of the EU, it has to prove being good, cooperative Europeans in the process. Outside the EU, it would still need the EU. Complete selfishness is unlikely to be rewarded.

    1. Liz
      May 14, 2015

      The EU is making Africa poorer by its protectionist customs policies – that’s selfishness.

    2. DaveM
      May 14, 2015

      The RN is short of ships capable of conducting rescue operations, as it is generally configured for war and security ops. Nevertheless it has cancelled a major international exercise in order to free up HMS Bulwark, and, following the Sierra Leone crisis, has redeployed a number of personnel who spent 6 months (including Xmas) floating off the west African coast. The Italians have a navy (presumably capable of patrolling its own waters), as do the French and the Spanish. Although the Spanish spend most of their time floating around near Gibraltar and running away when one of our ships turns up. (I believe they are our allies?!)

      What’s the Dutch contribution? And how many migrants will the Netherlands be taking?

      The UK (along with Canada, France, and the US) “attacked” Libya under UN Resolution 1973. Do you post on a similar website in France telling them that it’s all their own fault that they’ve now got a migrant crisis and that they should be patrolling foreign sovereign waters?

    3. Know-Dice
      May 14, 2015

      This is a real “moral maze” and it’s certainly not going to go away.

      I feel that Peter is right, that we unfortunately need to take some responsibility for our interference in Libya, but how do you separate those that will genuinely contribute (in all ways, not just monetary) to our societies rather than those who wish us harm?

      Is this a failure of our much vaunted International Development Department?

      1. Mark
        May 15, 2015

        These people are not Libyans. They are Syrians, Sengalese, Eritreans, Chadians, Nigerians, Afghans and Yemenis etc.

    4. Jerry
      May 14, 2015

      @PvR; “After [the UK] attacked Libya, which precipitated some of the current [migration] mess”

      That is a some what misleading comment, the only thing that has changed is the migration route and thus length of sea crossing (which is putting lives in danger now), if you think I’m wrong then ask Spain what they think of north African migrants coming across from Morocco in the past.

    5. Robert Taggart
      May 14, 2015

      Blighty should spend some of its bloated Overseas Aid Budget helping the Mediterranean countries process these Aliens. Also help in any negotiations with those perpetual ‘basket-case’ African countries.
      As for being good Europeans ? – no thankyou – it be bad enough being ‘European’ to begin with !

    6. bluedog
      May 14, 2015

      Our Home Secretary has been a wonderful European by explaining how the business model of people-smugglers works. In doing this Mrs May will have enabled those lacking an understanding of comparative moral positions to recognise that evil consists of rewarding people smugglers with success. Success comes when their clients land in Europe, are naively accepted as migrants, become citizens and then sponsor the immigration of their extended families to a life of relative ease on benefits. Turning back the boats so that this business model fails is in the interests of the EU.

      It shouldn’t be necessary to spell this out, but it is. Proving once again that membership of the EU is a liability and not an asset.

      You say, ‘Even if Britain considers itself “on its way out” of the EU, it has to prove being good, cooperative Europeans in the process. Outside the EU, it would still need the EU. Complete selfishness is unlikely to be rewarded.’

      It seems that membership of the EU also encourages world-class arrogance.

    7. Sandra Cox
      May 14, 2015

      ” After it attacked Libya …” “Complete selfishness is unlikely to be rewarded.”

      If by “it”, you are referring to my country, might we be reminded of the circumstances and media outcry and hand-wringing that led to UK, US and French strikes being carried out, rightly or wrongly in hindsight, followed by the pressing need for a NATO-led coalition to involve itself, including EU and Middle East countries.

      I am sick of hearing about our selfishness. The people of the UK have provided billions of pounds in funding to its bullying, greedy EU partners and bureaucrats. Along the way we have had to accept the EU’s intrusive, draconian laws and, most disgracefully of all, we are gradually being replaced by anyone who cares to walk through our borders, legally or otherwise.

      I think the order of the day for the EU is: Bankrupt the UK financially and culturally by sharing its wealth throughout the EU, decimated its industries; wipe England off the map, and replace its citizens with EU-imposed “grateful” immigrants from the EU and RoW! Perhaps then we, on our knees, might be grateful too to walk into the arms of a federal state, joining the Euro along the way!

      Peter, take a step back – look at what the EU project is doing to its citizens throughout Europe, and please refrain from lecturing us on selfishness!

      1. Jerry
        May 15, 2015

        Sandra Cox; “Peter, take a step back – look at what the EU project is doing to its citizens throughout Europe, and please refrain from lecturing us on selfishness!”

        Even more staggering that a modern ‘European’ can accuse the UK of being selfish, you know, so soon after the 70th anniversary of VE Day…

        1. Sandra Cox
          May 15, 2015

          That type of comment would never cross my mind. I’ll have to leave the sarcy and distasteful comments to the modern ‘Europeans’, Jerry. 🙂

    8. REPay
      May 14, 2015

      Peter – I think you wrongly assume the government wants to pull out of the EU. It wants to have a referendum – not the same thing.

  7. alan jutson
    May 14, 2015

    Desperate times for some people.
    Whilst the EU accepts these people, more and more will do exactly the same and follow them.

    The daft idea of attempting to destroy boats to halt the human tide is farcical.
    Some may be working fishing boats, some may be simply trading/small cargo boats.
    The only time you know what they are being used for is when they are full of people.
    Many boats used are inflatable, and you simply blow them up before use, so they can be hidden anywhere.

    The only sensible solution is to take the people straight back, after patching them up.

    This same tactic of people just arriving on Australia’s shores was tried a few years ago, the Government held firm, and returned them immediately.
    It is reported that not a single boat has even attempted to land in the last two years due to continuing sea patrols.

    If the World feels so strongly that these people have a refugee case/status, then the UN should be involved in helping to resolve and sorting the issue.

    At the moment we have open doors in Europe which is causing problems, the last thing we need is an open World policy

  8. Denis Cooper
    May 14, 2015

    I was furious to see some Italian woman saying that those rescued at sea should not be returned to Africa, but that didn’t mean that anyone could come. Well, of course it does, potentially, and as pointed out previously the numbers could be very large given that the population of Africa is already over a billion and rising rapidly. However that need not bother the Italians too much as out of the kindness of their hearts they send the illegal immigrants on to other EU countries, including the UK.

    On the other hand I was pleased to see it reported that Theresa May had said that they should be sent back to Africa. However the problem is that she not prepared to harden her heart sufficiently to say that they should be taken directly to North African shores, somewhere near their points of embarkation, and deposited safely on land. So we now have a Royal Navy assault ship using landing craft to help rescue illegal immigrants from the sea but then taking them to Italy, rather than using the same craft to land them back on North African beaches, and if necessary using its firepower to neutralise any armed opposition. Unless this is done the problem will just get worse and worse.

    1. Martyn G
      May 14, 2015

      Little or no chance at all of returning them from whence they came, because having once set foot in Italy and thus entered the EU, it will only need one smart cookie to claim asylum under the Human Rights Act and any plans of returning them to whence they came will become useless.
      It is past the time for the UN and the world as a whole to get a grip of this awful situation and actually do something to earn their money. The EU is pretty useless as its commissioners, like all left-leaning people and bodies, are determined to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator – which seems to me to be going quite well, judging by events and swathes of unemployed young people in so many EU countries and the latest plan to simply impose huge numbers of boat people to further drag down the countries who have to take them, like it or not.

    2. bigneil
      May 14, 2015

      T May has said they “should” be sent back – -pity it’s not they “will” be sent back. Clearly not as good (yet) at blatant deception as her boss.

    3. Mondeo Man
      May 14, 2015

      It will get worse and worse, Denis.

      And this is the bursting of the dam that we feared most and tried to warn about but were accused of hysteria.

      There is nothing that can be done to stop it. The leaders of the EU are too far Left.

      Under a Tory majority government we will see record upon record for mass immigration being broken. There is nothing they can do about it.

      They can build as many houses as they like. Create as many jobs as they want. It won’t make any difference.

      And in both cases they caused the worst of it – by signing Maastricht and by bombing Libya.

  9. DaveM
    May 14, 2015

    OT: 2 lines from the same BBC website article (regarding elected city mayors):

    1. “I will not impose this model on anyone,” Mr Osborne will say

    2. The move came two years after the people in Manchester had voted against having a mayor for the city alone.


    What’s the point of having MPs for those areas if everything is run at City/County Hall level? On one hand the govt dismisses an English Parliament on the grounds that it would add another layer of government, and on the other hand it adds those layers itself.

    Is there going to be a section in the Queen’s Speech which makes it clear what exactly the political arrangements for England are going to be? It seems to be an utter unplanned mess from where I’m sitting.

    1. Brian Tomkinson
      May 14, 2015

      Osborne seems to be behind all this. He agreed with the Greater Manchester council leaders (all but one of them Labour) that there would be a mayor. The separate Councils were not consulted until after agreement was reached and the electorate has not been consulted at all. A mayor is now being appointed – Labour of course – prior to an election in 2 years time. This person we are told will be given a £6bn budget to run the NHS in this area – again we have not been consulted just dictated to. I don’t want some Labour apparatchik having that much power but my views and those of others who live here apparently count for nothing.

    2. Jerry
      May 14, 2015

      @DaveM; “What’s the point of having MPs for those areas if everything is run at City/County Hall level?”

      You might ask the same question of the USA, with their love of City & County mayors, State governors, why do they see any point in having elected Representatives and Senators in Washington DC….

      1. DaveM
        May 14, 2015

        Those senators are elected to take part in federal debates on behalf of their states, leaving the running of the states to the governors. I have posted here before saying that I would not object to every metro and trad county in the country had the same mayoral system, with them all coming together to form an English Parliament (to enable more even distribution of wealth) with a First Minister, and with the Dept for LG becoming the Dept for England as the link to Westminster. That would mean the Westminster MPs would be able to debate and run UK-level issues only.

        However, it seems to me that the govt is half doing this but still leaving MPs to address constituency matters as well as national affairs. Too many cooks and all that. Hope this makes sense.

        1. Jerry
          May 15, 2015

          @DaveM; “However, it seems to me that the govt is half doing this but still leaving MPs to address constituency matters as well as national affairs”

          But isn’t that what also happens in the USA, just going by different names?!

          1. DaveM
            May 15, 2015

            I expect you’re 110% correct as usual. I haven’t studied US politics in that much depth so bow to your superior knowledge.

            However, this isn’t the USA, so it doesn’t really matter to me what they do there. I’m concerned with my country, ie. England.

          2. Jerry
            May 15, 2015

            @DaveM; Sarcasm will not disguise the fact that you again totally missed my point…

            If you think the UK has only tier of governance – national – then just what do you think our elected parish, district and country councils are for, to have tea with the ladies from the WI or something?! I really do not understand why so many people, who Mr Lifelogic might call “real Tories”, on our hosts site are so against elected Mayors – perhaps they’re just afraid of real democracy…

          3. DaveM
            May 15, 2015

            I never said I was against elected mayors. In fact, I have said repeatedly that if every trad and metro county had one it would go some way to creating an equal system for England. It’s the imbalance I object to. Try reading my reply to reply on PvL’s comment on today’s blog – I’m sure you’ll find some way to make an objectionable comment rather than producing an original point yourself.

    3. Iain Gill
      May 14, 2015

      There was a referendum on devolved regions in the North East, the people voted against. They would almost certainly do the same in other regions. The Chancellor is wrong.

    4. Bob
      May 14, 2015


      “Is there going to be a section in the Queen’s Speech which makes it clear what exactly the political arrangements for England are going to be?”

      Balkanisation, one slice at a time.

    5. Lifelogic
      May 14, 2015

      Indeed the last thing we need is yet more lefty government in these cities.

  10. Ian wragg
    May 14, 2015

    But free movement is not on the negotiation agenda so ultimately they will pitch up here for their taxpayers funded package
    I see Mark Carney agrees with what everyone else knows except stupid politicians that mass immigration forces down wages and increases benefits.
    What’s the target for the coming year John
    1 million gross half million net

    1. Bob
      May 14, 2015

      @Ian Wragg

      “mass immigration forces down wages and increases benefits”

      Relax, Dave will get the figures down below 100k? 900k out a million in.

    2. Roy Grainger
      May 14, 2015

      All politicians know this but most daren’t say it.

    3. bigneil
      May 14, 2015

      I would shorten your last comment – one million net – then they will send for all their relatives to come as well – so – over 10 million. Cameron better set more people on at the DWP centres and the Polish builders better get cracking on those taxpayer funded free-to-live-in houses.

  11. Narrow Shoulders
    May 14, 2015

    An asylum claim processing centre should be set up.on the African shore. Anyone wishing to claim asylum can be processed there and shipped over to the designated, quotaed EU country (not England) if successful.

    Any boat people rescued or seen to land can be shipped back to this centre.

    I recall this is how the Australians stemmed the tide.

    We are not responsible for the world as all those empire apologists keep spouting. They can’t have it both ways.

  12. Sandra Cox
    May 14, 2015

    Surprise, surprise, African ‘asylum seekers’ are to be allocated based on the strength of a country’s economy and unemployment rates. Step up to the plate, yet again, the UK.

    I’d have thought that the reverse should be the case. Many of the Eastern European countries should be taking them in to replace the millions of their own citizens who have moved to the UK.

    Why not use the funds we provide through our EU membership, and the EU’s plundering of our foreign aid, together with the cash flowing out of the UK on a daily basis, to help to build the infrastructure and “mansions” for those who (hopefully) will be returning home from the UK one day.

    Unfortunately, no matter what Cameron and May say, our EU partners will ensure that most of these migrants end up in the UK eventually!

    Whether it’s to be 2016 or 2017, Cameron should be starting renegotiations on EU membership as a matter of urgency. We should be shutting our doors immediately to all but the most vital immigration, and looking to remove or reduce immigrant benefits until we have finished negotiations. That might focus their minds, but I’ll not be holding my breath!

    1. bluedog
      May 14, 2015

      Yes indeed, Sandra, and because the Eurozone is a complete economic basket case this means that only the economically successful UK need take these illegal immigrants. This is how the EU rewards success. Of course, by pretending these economic migrants are asylum seekers, the EU encourages more of them to come, ultimately to the UK! There’s a parallel universe not far away, in Brussels.

    2. Pundit Tabor
      May 14, 2015

      Although they are not from the Med, Poland has been pulling its weight with regard to asylum seekers. Its just taken in a load of Tartars from the Crimea who do not fancy life with the Russians now in control. On its border with Belarus you will some Tartar villages whose ancestors came to Poland to fight as mercenaries against the Tsars.

      1. Mitchel
        May 15, 2015

        The same Crimean Tarars who prior to conquest by Imperial Russia were notorious slave traders,raiding into the Ukraine and Poland-Lithuania shipping their captives (only Catholics and Jews,the Orthodox Christians being spared under agreements with the Ukrainian Cossacks) across the Black Sea for sale in the Ottoman slave markets.

  13. Bob
    May 14, 2015

    Alex Salmond is calling for the UK to take 60k boat people.
    He didn’t say what we should do when we have reached that arbitary limit though.
    Take another 60k I guess.

    1. fedupsoutherner
      May 14, 2015

      Alex Salmond is a joke. Does he want them all in Scotland? Yes, while Scotland has plenty of space there is only one problem. They have no jobs in many areas! Jobs are going in the oil sector, banking and the recently closure of a paper factory saw hundreds of jobs go overnight. Where are these migrants supposed to live, what are they going to live on, where are their children going to be schooled, how are local services going to cope, what about GP’s, dentists etc? The list is endless. Even in places like Southampton it is now sometimes impossible to get a GP appointment the same week. This is in an area I used to live and it was never a problem a few years ago. We have to really sit down and think about the implications of all of this and until we are out of the EU I don’t see us having any chance of changing anything. We can look forward to a country made up of mostly foreigners in the next few years. Just more bonkers decisions coming out of the asylum of Brussels and sucked up by all the do-gooders over here. How about someone of these people thinking about their own people for a change first?

      1. Denis Cooper
        May 15, 2015

        Two weeks for a routine appointment with one of our GPs here. If you want an earlier appointment you have to persuade the receptionist that you need urgent attention, otherwise it is two weeks.

    2. Brian Tomkinson
      May 14, 2015

      He didn’t say they would all be welcome in Scotland either did he?

    3. DaveM
      May 14, 2015

      Do you think he’d have said the same if he’d won his referendum last year?

    4. Old Albion
      May 14, 2015

      If Alex Salmond wants 60K boat people? He can have them. They will fill his barren wasteland known as Scotland.
      With two provisos, he waits for Scottish Independence and for England to leave the EU.

    5. Robert Taggart
      May 14, 2015

      AEAS is a cheeky scally – mefears we can expect more of his ‘showboating’ – as he no longer has any power / responsibility.

    6. Roy Grainger
      May 14, 2015

      Easy for Salmond to say as no economic migrant with any sense would settle in his constituency.

    7. Pud
      May 14, 2015

      Perhaps he’s feeling embarrassed that under 1.5 million votes results in 56 SNP MPs so he’s trying to boost Scotland’s population?

    8. Mark
      May 14, 2015

      Is he volunteering to take them in Scotland?

    9. Mondeo Man
      May 14, 2015

      It’s about time Scotland started pulling her weight on this one.

  14. zorro
    May 14, 2015

    We definitely do need a government like that. The question is, do we have one?

    The soft belly countries know that these people are transitory through their countries. Let’s face it, they will get meagre benefits after jumping through their bureaucratic hurdles and no chance of a job. They are heading for the rich, northern countries and the UK in particular. All the talk of sharing is froth. Once they have the EU residence they can go anywhere in effect and will do so. They are particularly attracted to our easily accessible benefits and housing for those ‘in need’……


  15. Lifelogic
    May 14, 2015

    I just heard Mark Carney on radio 4 saying the banking systems is “now fixed and working exceptionally well”. If he really believes this then the man is totally deluded and is totally unsuitable for his position. Has he actually spoken to any small businesses about margins, fees, speed of decisions, or terms? Or has he just spoken to the banks’ PR departments?

    Banks are currently often able to pay just 0.1% on (unsecured) deposits and yet can get away with charging say base + 7% on secured loan to borrowers (even borrowers who are often far better credit risks than the banks themselves). If he thinks this is a sign of a competitive, functional lending market he is rather deluded. The slotting capital rules are very poorly structured, the banks are reluctant to lend on commercial property, to trading businesses or on development properties at sensible margins, fees and terms. Most will not even commit to lending beyond a 5 year term on commercial investment properties. The banks are also very slow to make decisions which is damaging in itself.

    One loan I know of was agreed at 1% over base about 10 years ago, but at renewal the very solid bank still wanted 6% over base for a new (5 year only) facility with a new large fee too and an expensive & totally pointless property revaluation. The loan to value (and risk) had declined hugely over the period, it was virtually a zero risk loan (as the bank knew perfectly well) even without the ample security offered.

    He is however clearly quite right when he says:- foreign workers drag down UK wages. How could the extra supply of labour not do so? It also discourages investments in productivity which is why productivity in the the UK is still so poor and has declined. The other reasons being:- the bloated and largely incompetent state sector, the poor education system, dysfunctional banks, endless over regulation, daft employment laws, the expensive energy religion, the over regulation of almost everything, the absurd complexity of employment and tax laws, the absurdly high tax rates and over expensive property.

    Perhaps Cameron can now start to do something about this having done so little with his Libdem government for the last five years.

  16. Iain Moore
    May 14, 2015

    Having Naval ships pick up migrants in the Med is the same as extending our border to the Mediterranean, for nothing has been resolved about stopping migrants claiming asylum from Britain the moment they climb aboard.

    But as to issue of migrants in general. Nothing is going to stop the flow of migrants until European Governments get tough like the Australians, and that is pretty unlikely until it is all too late.

    In addition the flow of migrants shows the asylum system is bust. We can no longer cope with the numbers involved in light of the ease of movement across the globe and the human rights circus which makes any control almost impossible.

    The asylum system is an Establishment indulgence we can no longer afford.

    1. Iain Gill
      May 14, 2015

      Thank goodness the RNLI is not public sector or the idiots would be ordering them out there too.

      The navy is there to defend the country, and genuine humanitarian crisis, not people in self inflicted problems like this.

  17. Douglas Carter
    May 14, 2015

    It’s worth remembering that the very long history of the UK’s Asylum policy has been grating on many European nations for more than a century. It dates from a period there were few countries on the continent whose citizens enjoyed relative freedom. As unfashionable as it will be, it’s worth invoking something Nigel Farage highlighted some time ago – that legitimate refugees from hellholes such as Syria should be given a haven in the UK. That would be entirely in keeping with the ethos of the policy. Economic migrants from places such as Senegal, Ghana or Gabon are an entirely different matter and no European nation should feel themselves under an obligation to entertain these people. Their plight of poverty and poor outcomes is not lost on me but that’s an accident of geographical birth – not malign and relentless oppression. Their lives may be dull and unrewarding – but they are not under imminent or long-term threat.

    It would be worth consulting politicians in Jordan. That nation has been the epicentre of several mass migrations of refugee populations across the past few decades and they have great experience or managing to both compassionately host, and then repatriate when possible, these populations. There must be something they’re doing right we can copy? In the absence of excoriation of the UNHCR, I would assume it’s internationally legal and within treaty stricture?

  18. Brian Tomkinson
    May 14, 2015

    JR: ” ..will then seek a new deal to tackle the underlying problem of free movement.”
    Can you please explain what this new deal will be which gives us proper control of the levels of immigration whilst remaining in the EU? I don’t see how it is possible.

  19. Iain Gill
    May 14, 2015

    You are not alone in saying this. There are a lot of mainstream politicians in other European countries who are deeply concerned about having to accept some of the people the UK has granted citizenship, certainly true in France.

    The concept of citizenship needs to evolve. Probably new migrants arriving through these routes should be given indefinite leave to remain in that one country granting it, and not citizenship. And they should be expected to go home as soon as their home country is safe. Pure economic migrants should not be allowed to bypass the normal routes of entry which decent people queue to use.

    If the Italians just start giving them all Italian passports, which the probably will do eventually, then they will be allowed here legally. We need to resolve this.

    On the other hand folk on indefinite leave to remain who entered through other routes, and have been happily integrated for many years, should be offered free travel throughout Europe. These are mainstream decent people who have followed the rules.

  20. Bert Young
    May 14, 2015

    Theresa May has got it right . The migrants should be sent back . It is foolish to think that the migrants can be absorbed into Europe without understanding the level of change required in adopting them ; schools are not equipped to deal with this , hospitals are not staffed to cope . It is not just Libya where the traffickers exist , it is all along the shores of the Mediterranean .

    This is a problem for the UN to deal with ; the response required needs the co-operation of many countries and has to be planned and funded at the highest level .

  21. Ex-expat Colin
    May 14, 2015

    Watched 3 more damp rags on the Parliament Ch yesterday. At least Timmermans said we have an opt out in amongst his lengthy techno babble. We know that means little because the non negotiable free movement thing kicks in later, unless we get out of the EU PDQ? No doubt they’ll still try to kick the borders down simply because the EU cannot satisfactorily solve one single thing! Simply a big problem creator.

    Another damp rag on R4 Today this am…solution equals the EU Development Plan for Africa. Quality car sales in Germany to increase I guess?

    I think you only need the EU if you owe them, judging by the extended can kicking for Greece. The EU need us more like…or what might be left of it further down the can kicking road.

  22. They Work for Us?
    May 14, 2015

    Simply don’t accept anyone as a “proper EU Citizen” who has not held that status for ten years and deny entry and benefits.
    We have just elected an allegedly Conservative Govt elected but we are to be dictated to, against the electorate’s wishes by foreign Socialists.

  23. Iain Gill
    May 14, 2015

    So the Chancellor is going to devolve power to the regions is he? Despite the “test case” region, the North East, which Labour asked in a referendum, if they wanted this voted overwhelming against this. Despite the fact the NHS etc. is rubbish is precisely because the patients have so little decision making power, and far too much power is in the hands of local bureaucrats. And services are already so bad for citizens who move regions within the UK regularly, like the flexible workforce we need, regularly losing their place in an NHS queue, or getting the worst school in town, simply because they moved area. The chancellor is wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. What he should be doing is putting buying power in individual citizen’s hands, allowing their choices to force constant optimisation in the providers, and not creating mini nanny states instead of the central one we have now.

  24. Denis Cooper
    May 14, 2015

    A quick search tells me that the Italian woman who has been appointed to run the EU’s foreign and security policy was a communist:

    Now I am usually prepared to overlook youthful follies, and she was only 15 when she joined the Italian Communist Youth Federation in 1988; but she stayed with it until 1996 when it was dissolved and assumed the mantle of a social democratic party, and has since been involved with distinctly left-wing successor parties; and her appointment to run the EU’s foreign and security policy was opposed by the governments of some of the eastern European member states on the grounds that she, and also her husband, were too pro-Russian; and by the age of 41 it can no longer be treated as youthful folly.

    I wonder whether the Conservative Prime Ministers of this country who were most responsible for getting us into this EU mess – Heath, Thatcher, Major – ever envisaged that one day it would have its own foreign and security policy run by an Italian who was once openly a communist, and who may still be that way inclined at heart, who would try to overturn our national immigration policy by forcing us to admit an uncontrollable and unpredictable fraction of the (now) one billion population of Africa.

    And I also wonder whether our present Conservative Prime Minister opposed her appointment to that position of “High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy”, which didn’t even exist until the Lisbon Treaty agreed by Brown came into force whereupon Cameron claimed that it no longer existed as a treaty and could therefore no longer be the subject of a referendum in the UK, notwithstanding his previous “cast-iron guarantee”, but which under that treaty is filled by qualified majority voting on the European Council of which he is a member, to run a common foreign and security policy which did not even exist until his Conservative predecessor Major agreed to it being established through the Maastricht Treaty, but at that time kept under the control of the governments of the member states rather than the Commission.

    And finally I also wonder whether Cameron’s proposed “renegotiation” to transform the EU into something more acceptable to the British people will cover the abolition of this post and the winding up of the common foreign and security policy.

    Reply Now he has a majority Mr Cameron will give us an In/Out referendum. So I wonder when people like you will stop complaining about Mr Cameron and the Conservatives, and do something positive to make the Out cause more attractive to the majority of the UK people, which may be the only way to resolve all the problems you identify.

    1. Denis Cooper
      May 15, 2015

      JR, a general election doesn’t wipe anyone’s slate clean, their past record is still there unchanged.

      Reply An election does change things in many ways. Of course someone may still have to answer for decisions, statements or mistakes made in a prior Parliament. However, an Election gives every MP the chance to explain how and why he or she has changed their views, and to apologise for mistakes. It also gives the electorate the chance to demand more change and to pass a judgement on whether the good outweighed the bad or not. Mr Carswell and Mr Reckless for example, did change party and sought the endorsement of an election to that important change. One had an electorate that agreed with the MP, and the other failed to convince. Mr Carswell can now say he is not responsible for any of the good and bad things done by the Conservative party because he has changed.
      I and my party changed our view on tuition fees, opposing them in the 2005 election, and supporting them in the 2010 election. That was much debated at the time, but was the honest way to make the change to a less popular policy and did remove our commitment to free HE.

      1. Denis Cooper
        May 15, 2015

        Yes, but a rather fluky general election victory for the Tory party in 2015 doesn’t mean we’ll forget what that party above all others has done to drag us into the EU mess over the past half century, step by step, and moreover how it has accomplished that wicked design.

        It would be foolish to forget; as Edmund Burke said:

        “Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.”

        We don’t want see a repeat of the 1975 referendum, do we?

  25. Sean
    May 14, 2015

    The only way to stop this is join UKIP otherwise you will just waste your time with the Cons!

  26. yosarion
    May 14, 2015

    The SNP were banging on about taking their fair share last night, a bit rich from a place where the population growth has been minimal at best and where migrants often fail to settle.
    Maybe its time for them to put their money where their mouth is and propose a one Hundred thousand Home New Town in the Highlands.

    1. Sandra Cox
      May 14, 2015

      Don’t worry, they’ll be chased out of Scotland before they can say “where’s the benefits office?”.

  27. ChrisS
    May 14, 2015

    The EU really is a hopeless case, isn’t it ?

    As if there are not already enough unemployed young people across ClubMed, a massive influx of 16-30 yr old African economic migrants is the last thing those countries need.

    Mrs May is absolutely right : we have to make it very difficult to get into Europe : every economic migrant needs to know before they try that they will be sent straight back to North Africa.

    Only genuine asylum seekers should even be considered for entry into Europe and it should be a requirement that their application is submitted and vetted before they try to make the journey across the Med. Attempting to enter Europe illegally should result in automatic rejection.

    If proper facilities were made for their claims to be assessed in North Africa, Europe would then choose to reject every economic migrant, allow entry to those with skills Europe needs and support the remainder financially to remain in North Africa.

    None of this will be easy to set up but the alternative is much worse and the more migrants that make it into Europe the greater the problem will become. If the problem is not serious enough already, failure to act will probably see it grow exponentially.

    I feel for the citizens of Sweden whose country and culture is well under way to being irrevocably altered by the hugely disproportionate number of asylum seekers that country is accepting. Shades of Britain since Blair and Brown opened the flood gates here.

    Germany has more scope to take them in but they are already struggling to assimilate the numbers they have allowed in in recent years.

    As for the UK and its future in Europe :

    We have already been warned that freedom of movement is not negotiable. If that is indeed the case we only have one option. The fact that Brixit will also release us from the dead hands of the Brussels bureaucracy and it’s intrinsically protectionist leanings will be a bonus.

    We need have no fear of leaving the EU. There will be a deal to keep us in the Single Market, we are too important a trading partner to Germany for us to be frozen out. Industry may bluff and bluster about lost jobs and trade but it is just that, bluff.

    Our much less restrictive labour laws are a great attraction as is our language and legal system. Firms like Toyota and Honda are not about to close their factories here and move to highly restrictive France or high cost Germany.

    The advantage often put forward that to trade with Europe, a company needs to be within it, is an overrated argument anyway :

    Ford moved its entire production line building Transit vans for Europe from Eastleigh to Turkey. They judged that even lower labour rates in Turkey were more advantageous to them than producing the vans within the EU.

    1. Denis Cooper
      May 15, 2015

      Unfortunately the freedom of movement of persons is, always has been, one of the “four freedoms” of the Common/Single/Internal Market, the others being the freedom of movement of goods, services and capital.

      That goes right back to the 1957 Treaty of Rome, Article 3(c):

      “the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital”,

      with the freedom of movement of goods covered separately in 3(a).

  28. Dan H.
    May 14, 2015

    The reason the trafficking is continuing is simple: the people being trafficked think it works as a way to get to Europe; they ignore the people who just mysteriously vanish as being unimportant.

    The way you stop it is by intercepting the ships and towing them back to the North African port, then sinking the ship they used in the harbour from which they set out. Do that a few times and the harbour master of that port will get thoroughly sick of shifting shipwrecks from his harbour, and will tell the traffickers to get lost; that or he’ll simply give up and leave the harbour a cluttered, unusable mess.

    The people who were on the ships won’t like it, either. They paid good money to be carried to Europe and there they are, back where they started, poorer but no better off. They’ll tell the world about it, loudly.

    A final measure is to simply blockade the ports which traffic people for a while. Nothing goes in, nothing gets out, the port sits idle whilst the local fishermen fume and the harbour master tears his hair out. Be sure to tell the port why it is being blockaded; any more trouble and the blockade lasts twice as long next time. Pretty soon, people traffickers are about as popular as bubonic plague.

  29. Robert Taggart
    May 14, 2015

    ‘Europe’ desperately needs to be a ‘pick and mix’ institution – but – it could still expand its remit.
    Blighty would be wise methinks to opt out of as much as possible – apart from matters pertaining to trade – as per the ‘pup’ we were sold in the ’70’s !

  30. lojolondon
    May 14, 2015

    This is all garbage, unfortunately, because immigrants sit on the beach in Italy until they are processed, the moment they have a passport then they move to the UK to enjoy the highest benefit payments in the EU. So Theresa May can say whatever she likes, but they will still end up here.

  31. Richard1
    May 14, 2015

    There was a German politician on the radio the other day asserting that many of these migrants are escaping from ‘climate change’ in sub-Saharan Africa. We need to watch this one as we know that ‘climate change’ can be used to justify all manner of policies without the slightest evidence. (I thought the only discernible climate change in that part of the world was greening of deserts due to higher atmospheric CO2?)

  32. Denis Cooper
    May 14, 2015

    Apropos my recent comments about the bias in the electoral system having flipped over to now favour the Tories over Labour:

    “The mountain facing Labour”

    “On an equal amount of votes – 34.5% a piece – the Conservatives would have almost fifty seats more than Labour, Labour would need to have a lead of about four points over the Conservatives just to get the most seats in a hung Parliament. The way the cards have fallen, the system is now even more skewed against Labour than it was against the Conservatives.”

    That “almost fifty seats more than Labour” roughly matches my calculation that the Tories have won 22 seats that would have gone to Labour on a strict proportionality between the number of seats won and the number of votes attracted.

  33. Man of Kent
    May 14, 2015

    It seems many ,if not all the boat people are Muslim escaping from civil war and terror groups.

    Since conflict in Africa is either Sunni or Shia inspired we should ask what are Saudi Arabia and Iran doing to help their co-religionists?

    Why are they not tapped up for the costs of the operation and asked to at least give shelter to their own people ?

    I am sure we could organise flights to Riyadh and Teheran to help them out.

    What has this got to do with the EU ? Zilch !

  34. Atlas
    May 14, 2015

    As you allude to, the other members of the EU can circumvent our ‘defences’ merely by making these migrants citizens. We need out of the EU.

  35. forthurst
    May 14, 2015

    The creation of failed states in the ME and Africa is a deliberate policy of the neocons who control US foreign policy. Why was there no post-Saddam or post-Gaddafi plan ready to execute after freedom was delivered to the enslaved peoples of Iraq and Libya from 10,000ft? Because chaos was the deliberate intention. Why is the US trying to remove Assad? Because it is trying to turn Syria into another failed state. Why did the US overthrow the government of Ukraine? Because it wanted to create another failed state. So, what is the cause of the boat people, apart, of course, from those very evil people traffickers? Because people would far rather live in a dictatorship in which there was order than where chaos reigns and the only law is that of the gun.

    Why are the neocons doing it? They want to establish hegemony over the world and harvest its riches. In order to do this, they need to undermine that area of the world that is a potential rival and might threaten its rule; that area is Eurasia. How to do that? Impose economic sanctions for frivolous reasons which damage everyone except the USA which is largely self-sufficent. Flood it with unskilled but needy refugees, ensure that Germany does not form an alliance with Russia by creating a conflict zone between them, ensure that the stupid British continue to believe in the ‘Special Relationship’ and continue to act as surrogates for the neocons whilst reaping a harvest of dead and maimed servicemen and armadas of victims of their own malignant and unprovoked aggression. Meanwhile, the USA continues to bomb throughout Africa, creating ever more refugees and ensuring that the mineral wealth as elsewhere becomes theirs by theft, whilst at the same time executing its ‘pivot to Asia’.

    Reply This is not how most US people in favour of military intervention think or argue.They were trying to bring democracy to these countries, though we can argue about their lack of success in many cases.

    1. forthurst
      May 15, 2015

      Reply to reply: you cannot speak for how any think, at all, or some argue in confidence among themselves. Of course, these were not the arguments put forward for public consumption to ‘justify’ military action. However, some documents in the public domain and utterances by insiders get pretty close. Apart from anything else, ‘bringing democracy’ is not a casus belli recognised by the UN so they have to come up with something else anyhow. Without understanding their real motivation, it becomes difficult to comprehend why they continually attack some countries that are ‘undemocratic’, with largely adverse consequences for their populations, but not others, or what they might do next.

  36. Iain Moore
    May 14, 2015

    The Thais, Malaysians, and Indonesians have shown the Europeans how to do it. Give these boat people provisions , and tell them to get lost.

    Europeans by allowing themselves to be pushed around are inviting more migrants to try their luck , and so leading to the deaths of many more of these migrants.

    1. Denis Cooper
      May 15, 2015

      But the EU Commission says that the EU needs more immigration.

  37. Kenneth
    May 14, 2015

    The most important thing is saving lives.

    The only way to save lives as I see it is to remove all incentives for this traffic by refusing entry,

    The eu policy of encouraging more migrants is disgusting.

  38. John
    May 14, 2015

    John, we never hear about the £100 bn per annum balance of payments deficit with the EU and never hear about the fact that after Lisbon the EU sets the rules on borders Summary of Lisbon

  39. shieldsman
    May 14, 2015

    What is is that MP’s including our Prime Minister do not understand about FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT?
    Admitting economic migrants and asylum seekers to an EU member State, requires that member Country to process the migrant.
    Giving leave to stay means the migrant is given papers to show they are a citizen of that Country and of the EU.
    Not to to do so would mean they are stateless, unless returned to their point of departure.
    Having been granted citizenship of a member state they are free to reside in another member state and seek work therein under freedom of movement.

    Court of Justice of the European Union ruling 11 November 2014 – Economically inactive EU citizens who go to another Member State solely in order to obtain social assistance may be excluded from certain social benefits.
    Ms Dano did not enter Germany in order to seek work there and therefore was not entitled to jobseekers allowance.

    The Dutch gave tens of thousands of Somalians citizenship, a large propor-
    tion of them moved with their freedom of movement rights to decamp to the
    Berbera, the fourth largest city in Somaliland, should be twinned with Bristol,
    according to campaigners. The city council heard last month that about
    10,000 people who currently reside in Bristol originate from Somaliland.
    Migrants allocated to poorer Eastern European countries will decamp to the UK as fast as the back of the lorry will get them here.

    1. Mondeo Man
      May 14, 2015

      Exactly why the French PM wants people massing at the English Channel to claim asylum in France. Thereafter they can wander freely into Britain and off his hands – problem sorted.

      We are finished. And it will come to pass under a Tory majority government.

  40. Chriss
    May 14, 2015

    Only slightly off topic : we are talking borders here.

    Do you have concerns about the proposal to give limited devolved powers to cities ?

    It looks to me that this could be being proposed in order to start a process that will ultimately allow the civil service and executive to deny us full EVEL because they will say that the cities who want it have enough freedoms.

    Could this be the start of the Balkanisation of our country ?

    1. Iain Moore
      May 15, 2015

      Indeed it is the balkanisation of our country. Osborne has managed to come up with a scheme which is worse than Labour’s regional balkanisation of England, for he is going to scatter around England some cities with various powers, while many other English people get no representation. This piecemeal devolution is going to be used as an excuse to deny English people their own Parliament. The British establishment are dividing and seeking to rule England.

      1. Denis Cooper
        May 15, 2015

        And not only without any referendums to ask local people if that is what they want, but actually ignoring a previous referendum in Manchester when local people said that was not what they wanted.

  41. Pauline Jorgensen
    May 16, 2015

    Shortly before the vote the EU (I think) issued a strongly worded statement that any migrants would be returned to their port of origin and the ships they had travelled in would be sunk. This would make the whole thing less palatable both for the traffickers and the economic migrants. What happened to this, we still seem to be landing people in the EU?

Comments are closed.