Free movement and Brexit

The government should not be drawn into discussion of free movement by our EU neighbours. The referendum was quite clear. We wish to take back control of our borders. Vote Leave expressly ruled out the Norway option or EEA membership, mainly because of the need to accept free movement.

The way to control numbers will be through a work permit system with quotas for skilled and qualified people we need, adapted to our economic and social needs. There is no need to stop people coming here as visitors or to invest and set up businesses if they have their own means of support. The controls should be on admission to benefits and through employers who will need to ensure the individual from the EU has a work permit, just as they have to for people from outside the EU today.

This method of taking back control also avoids difficult issues on the Irish border, allowing free access as today.

The only issues the UK needs negotiate relate to the basis for continued trade and business links. We should propose no change, but be ready to respond if they do wish to erect barriers in the way of their trade with us.


  1. Lifelogic
    July 21, 2016

    Exactly, a work permit system based on merit and the UK]s needs. A system entirely under UK government control that can be flexible as needs change. One that is open to the best from all the World and not the EU’s racist EU good everyone else bad systems that Theresa May presided over for years.

    1. Hope
      July 21, 2016

      Wishful thinking JR. May is still using language “to curb free movement” for trade deals not stop it, very worrying. She will not deliver what we voted for. She needs to held to account now. Not allowed to cop out to provide an EU light watered down version. No free movement for any deal. Work permits and the same applied to EU citizens as other nations around the world. No discrimination.

      After her all her platitudes last week another tragedy from Muslems attacks. When will hear decisive action taken to make us safe? Christianaphobia or some other similar term going to announced to label such attacks?

  2. Lifelogic
    July 21, 2016

    I read that the recent yougov pole suggested that now that the Tory party is officially a Brexit party (and Cameron/Osborne have gone) Tory support has risen from 30% to 40% and UKIP support has fallen from 20% to 12%.

    It is surely very clear that had Cameron and Osborne been real Tories and been firmly for leaving the EU they would have won last two sitting duck elections handsomely. Instead they threw the first one and only just scraped home in the second. This one only due to the appalling vision of an Ed Milliband dog wagged by a Nicola Sturgeon tail.

    Two open goal elections, they flunked one and would have lost the second but for the appallingly weak opposition. Their pro EU, tax borrow and waste, greencrap toting and open door immigration was not very popular. Which was hardly very surprising.

    Theresa May now has yet another open goal (thanks only to the abject failures of Cameron’s policies). Let us hope she actually grabs it and can now reinvent herself as a proper, low tax, small government & Brexit delivering Conservative.

    An excellent & optimistic piece by Allister Heath in the Telegraph today.

    Heath, Major & Cameron types have all been a disasters at elections. Major’s one victory was essentially just Mrs Thatcher fourth win (with him as her chosen man). When the electorate quickly realised what he really was then he and the Tories were buried. Hopefully May and the Conservatives will finally see what the voters actually want form the Tories and bury the Heath, Major, Cameron, Osborne no nation, modernisers/Libdems for good. The public wanted the opposite of Heath, Major, Clark, Cameron & Osborne. They want lower taxes, no EU, efficient government, economic competence, cheap energy, optimism, selective (quality only) immigration and real jobs & growth.

    1. Jerry
      July 21, 2016

      @LL; You are adding four + four and getting five! There are all number of reasons why Tory party support has risen that far from being related to the departure of Cameron and Osborne, there is a leadership crisis in Labour (that could end with an even stronger hard left wing in control) to a crisis of identity in UKIP now that they need to reinvent themselves or become an irrelevance.

      1. Lifelogic
        July 22, 2016

        The main reason for the extra support is that the Tory party is now a Brexit party, Cameron and IHT ratter Osborne have gone and many ex Tory UKIP voters voters can now vote Conservative yet again.

        Cameron was gifted two open goal elections, he threw one with his cast iron ratting and very nearly lost the second too – all due to his lefty, broken compass, pro EU, greencrap, tax borrow and waste approach.

        True Labour are rather a joke at the moment but then they usually are.

        1. Jerry
          July 22, 2016

          @LL; As for “Cam-borne” exit, indeed some people will now vote conservative again but if the party goes in the direction you seem to wish for Mr Lifelogic many more will find they can no longer vote conservative, for them they will either sit on their hands or seek out another right-of-centre (or at least centrist) party, perhaps a new party that comes out of a split Labour party – and thus once again the Tory party will have lurched to the right meaning a centrist (Blairite, all things to all men, type) party will come up through the field just as happened between 1997 and 2010.

          1. Lifelogic
            July 23, 2016

            No they will n0t. what I am suggesting will work well economically and they will vote for what works and benefits them in the end. As they did this Thatcher for 3+1 times (with Major as the continuation man until they realised he was another pro EU Ted Heath type)

            The lefty Tory PM’s Heath, Major, Cameron have been disasters at the ballot box. Cameron nearly lost two sitting duck elections against dreadfully weak oppositions.

          2. Jerry
            July 23, 2016

            @LL; But as I asked the other day, did Thatcher win three time or did a far to left leaning Labour party loose three times between 1979 and 1987?

            Oh and if voters didn’t vote for Major because he was far to pro EU by 1997 why did they then vote for Blair (three times in a row), even though he was even more pro EU, never mind wanting the UK to adopt the Euro!

            Also Heath won against a very strong Wilson government, indeed the Tory party (and the opinion polls of 1970) were expecting Heath to be defeated in 1970 as he had been in 1966 [1]. Major was expected to loose in 1992 until Major got on his soap box and Kinnock had that Sheffield moment, many expected Cameron to loose in 2010 until Brown had an unguarded moment with a radio-microphone he had forgoten he was still wearing. So quite why you think Heath, Major and Cameron were “disasters at the ballot box” -other than wish-listing for ‘facts’ that back up you wish-listing assertions…

            Election result after election result shows that UK voters are generally centrist, as indeed Mrs T was (in the main), far more centrist than you are Mr Lifelogic anyway.

            [1] and of course Heath was ultimately defeated, in Feb 1974 (his “back me or sack me” election campaign), due to a lurch to the right by the Tories on employment and union rights

            Reply A bizarre false view of the past. The man issue was always the economy, and the main event was Major’s decision to take us into the European Exchange Rate Mechanism which gave us a dreadful inflation and recession, which kept the Conservatives out of power for 13 years. Only Labour’s Great banking crash recession changed that. The EU was not a main issue in any of the elections from 1974-2010.

          3. Jerry
            July 24, 2016

            @JR reply; Oh right so historical election facts are a “bizarre false view of the past” (or were you replying to what Mr Lifelogic had said before)!..

            But if we are dealing in personal opinions though, and why Major lost in 1997; Blair didn’t just want to take the UK back into the ERM, he wanted the UK to adopt the Euro as our national currency, yet he was elected on such a very pro-EU manifesto. So obviously then the issue troubling the majority of electors was not the ERM, or our possible adoption of the Euro, nor even our membership of the EU. By 1997 the Tory party was beset with infighting and its (economic) policies were seen as tired, the UK’s post ERM recession, the economic downturn had actually started well before Black Wednesday, by the ERM fiasco it was the third in recession 17 years – and as so many people and companies by then had large mortgagees and/or other credit, off the back of Tory policies, it was thus the most damaging.

            “The EU was not a main issue in any of the elections from 1974-2010.”

            Perhaps not within the Tory (parliamentary) party but for others on the political right the EU has been a major issue since at least 1997 (remember Lord Goldsmith’s “Referendum Party”), if not before, Thatcher’s EEC budget rebate for example. EU membership has been a major issue on the political left since at least 1974, hence the 1975 referendum, never mind the 1983 Foot manifesto pledge of unilateral exit from the EEC. Whilst our EEC/EU membership has been a major Liberal (LibDem) party issue since the 1960s and before.

    2. Ken Moore
      July 21, 2016

      Unfortunately Mrs May is just another ‘moderniser’ Blairite robot although she knows how to talk a good game when it suits.
      If she was really serious about delivery she would never have appointed the left winger Amber Rudd as Home secretary. Her view is that mass immigration isn’t really a problem it just needs to be better presented to the voters. Hopelessly out of touch.
      She talks about ‘sustainable’ immigration but won’t say what that means in terms of numbers despite there being broad agreement that it should be in the ‘tens of thousands’.
      Will senior back benchers like John Redwood accept net migration at 300,000 plus for the foreseeable future..or revolt ?. When is non Eu migration going to come down ?.

      1. rose
        July 22, 2016

        Amber Rudd said in her first appearance at the despatch box as Home Secretary that one of the most important things in her intray was the left wing vendetta against the defeat of the Scargillites in the 1980s. Remember Michael Foot for ever refighting the Spanish Civil War? You have been warned. Appeasement will be the theme of her career.

        1. Lifelogic
          July 23, 2016

          Rudd give me no confidence at all.

    3. Mark B
      July 21, 2016

      A single Swallow does not a summer make. Have learnt nothing LL. CMD came to power on the back of being a faux Euroscprtic, what makes you think the present incumbent is any different ?

      1. Lifelogic
        July 22, 2016

        I too have my fears about remainer May, she would not have been my choice at all, but I suspect that, post the Brexit vote, the party and momentum has changed. It is clear that a pro Brexit Tory party is far more likely to win elections. I do not think it will return to the absurd lefty, pro EU/Libdim Cameron agenda and the economic illiteracy of IHT ratter & tax borrow and waste Osborne.

        1. rose
          July 23, 2016

          But there is all the nonsense about getting rid of the lazy Notting Hill elite and bringing in hardworking comprehensive educated people. Because, it is being said, that is what the country wants.

          The half of the country who stood up to the elite did so because the elite were on the wrong side of the argument: the elite wanted to go on with the short termist policy of growing the population in order to grow the GDP and to hell with wealth per capita or quality of life. Not because they had been to good schools. If they had been on the right side of the argument they would not have been rejected.

          This matters, because the policies will be framed around the lie that Brexit was a cry for help and that what is needed is a bigger GDP, i.e. more mass immigration, to deal with it.

    4. Lifelogic
      July 21, 2016

      Justine Greening, the new Education Secretary was asked about her stance on Grammar Schools yesterday on the daily politics.

      She said something like:- it was a debate that they even had when she was still at school, and she was not going to be rushed on the issue!

      She is 47 so that is about 30 years + she has has to think about the issue. Yet she still has not even made up her mind! Can politicians never get on with anything but hot air, lies, their expense claims and calling for “an open debate on the issue”!

      Just get on with it all.

      Lots of new Grammar & Selective Schools please (and practical skills training) now, a five runway Heathwick, cancel HS2, cancel all the green crap grants, abolish IHT, scrap the work place pension, scrap HS2, go for cheap energy, reduce income tax to 40% tops, reduce the absurd rates of stamp duty, scrap the bonkers sugar tax, start charging (those who can afford it) for the incompetent NHS, scrap Hinckly Point C, give tax relief for private health and private education, increase the real incentives to work, start the bonfire of red tape ……………just get on with it.

      Just announce these all today or tomorrow and set a proper direction then do them!

      Oh and scrap the absurd “workers and customers on company boards” absurdity!

      30+years and she still has not decided! Has Mrs May not decided on these issue either?

      1. hefner
        July 23, 2016

        LL, Reading your comments day after day, I am wondering who is the most efficient producer of hot air. Are you never at work?

  3. Mark B
    July 21, 2016

    Good morning.

    As always on this, I disagree.

    The ballot paper was quite clear. It asked me if I wanted to remain part of the EU or not. Obviously I chose NOT. There was nothing said before or after. I was not voting on anything else. I was not voting on EFTA. I was not voting on EEA. I was not voting WTO. I was not voting on bilateral trade agreement. And above all, I was not voting on Vote Leave or its manifesto, if it had one. Vote Leave didn’t even have a plan.

    It is because the previous PM was so woeful in his job, and just about everyone in the Little Westminster Village thought they were going to win, they felt no need of one. A total dereliction of duty.

    Immigration and trade is not the issue. What is the issue is getting back our sovereignty and holding those responsible to proper account. That is what I voted for !

    Reply We had and have a plan and it includes taking back control of our borders

    1. Denis Cooper
      July 21, 2016

      I tend to agree. We voted to leave the EU and regain control, including over our immigration policy, but actually setting that policy is another matter. In the past I’ve suggested that this should be put to a referendum in which the established body of citizens are asked how many people from abroad they would like to join them as new citizens, the purpose being to discover the median where half think it too many and half think it too few. That way we might all be able to agree to welcome the new citizens rather than resent them.

    2. Jerry
      July 21, 2016

      @JR reply; As did all the other Brexit groups (from the BNP to the Communists) but we were not asked to choose a ‘groups plan’, we were simply just asked if we wanted to Leave the EU or not.

      Some like @Mark B; above will have voted Leave to get back our sovereignty, others will have voted Leave to control migration, others still will see via Brexit the chance to rebuild our industrial base, a few might even have voted Leave because outside of the EU a future government could have a programme of limited to wholesale (re)nationalisation, a minority will have no doubt voted Leave out of raw xenophobia – and this is the point, whilst ‘Vote Leave’ was the official campaigning group, it is not now the official Brexit group or party, hence why there has been calls for a cross party, cross group, approach to Brexit and not just the influence of the Tory elements of Vote Leave.

      1. Edward2
        July 21, 2016

        It’s irrelevant Jerry.
        The referendum has happened and a result has been declared.
        It’s up to our elected Government to carry out the wishes of the majority.
        As our PM has said Brexit means Brexit

        1. Jerry
          July 22, 2016

          @Edward2; “It’s irrelevant Jerry.”

          Which (had you actually read my comment) is what I suggested, and whilst it is now the duty of “our elected Government to carry out the wishes of the majority” there is no single ‘correct’ approach to Brexit, unlike with elections and party manifestos.

          “Brexit means Brexit”

          But what does Brexit actually mean? If we are going to have Brexit I would prefer Brexit to mean Exit, otherwise we are better off inside the room, sitting at the desk, banging the desktop, rather than standing outside the room meekly asking how high we need to jump or how low we have to bend.

          1. Edward2
            July 22, 2016

            I realise you are all excited about the referendum result and want instant Brexit but you are going to have to wait just a little.
            The PM has already stated that Article 50 will not used this year.
            Talks with major EU nations and nations outside the EU are underway.

          2. Jerry
            July 22, 2016

            @Edward2; “[you] want instant Brexit”

            I have said no such thing, other than stating that any exit outside of Article 50 would be unilateral (for example repeal of the 1972 Act of Accession) and thus an ‘instantaneous exit’. Wanting A50 triggered is actually accepting that there is likely to be a 2 year wait until legal Brexit, far from being instant…

            “Talks with major EU nations and nations outside the EU are underway.”

            No they are not, what do you not understand, no meaningful talks will take place with the EU or EU27 member countries until A50 is triggered, any ‘talks’ at the moment are in effect off the record between certain EU27 leaders who -as I noted elsewhere on our hosts site this morning- who might not be in power come A50 negotiations if the UK waited to long to trigger A50! There are major elections pending in both France and Germany in 2017.

          3. Edward2
            July 23, 2016

            Don’t be so pedantic
            Define meaningful

          4. Jerry
            July 23, 2016

            @Edward2; “Define meaningful”

            I did, as you would know had you have bothered to read past the second line of the paragraph! 🙁

            The only “meaningful” talks are those after A50 has been triggered, and held on the record with all of the EU27, because any one of the EU27 countries could block an otherwise off the record agreed Brexit -for example, what might be acceptable to France and Germany might not be to Spain, even more so if it would encourage separatism.

          5. Edward2
            July 25, 2016

            That is not a real definition of meaningful.

    3. formula57
      July 21, 2016

      Was voting Leave not sufficient expression of a wish to no longer be bound by EU rules on immigration and trade? “Those responsible” had promised us control of immigration but it was clear the promise could not be fulfilled whilst the UK is bound by EU rules. Similarly, “those responsible” had promised cuts to business regulations and red tape generally.

    4. Excalibur
      July 21, 2016

      JR wrote: ‘We had and have a plan and it includes taking back control of our borders’.

      Immigration is the prime issue. I would have expected Theresa May, or her Home Secretary, to have instigated immediately the recruitment and expansion of our Border guards. There must be many ex service personnel who would make excellent border police. Action now would ensure we have a force ready to implement the border controls as soon as the necessary legislation is in place. Why does everything have to be concluded at such a dilatory pace ?

    5. oldtimer
      July 21, 2016

      I agree with JR’s main post.

      Control of immigration is a subset of control of sovereignty, as is control of our laws, restoration of the Supreme Court as the Supreme Court and not subject to the ECJ, as is control of the laws and regulations which govern us, as is the ability to sack the government of the day which makes and passes those laws and regulations.

      Trade does matter, especially that conducted within our borders as it will be possible to regulate it to our own needs and wishes uncompromised by the needs and wishes of the other members of the EU or even more importantly the unseen, unelected, unaccountable EU bureaucracy in Brussels.

    6. Seb
      July 21, 2016

      Hi John,

      Great article as always, love your work and I’m following you on Twitter 🙂

      I voted leave and proudly so (I’m 26, very much working class and not 62 so the left can stick their demographics argument where the sun doesn’t shine so brightly).

      One question I wanted to ask you:

      For all the people who voted almost entirely based on the immigration problem (ie not me), I get the feeling that a lot of people who want less foreigners, may be implying they want less people who don’t ‘look’ English.

      (words left out ed)

      With this in mind, if we decide to drastically cut EU immigration but don’t shave down non-EU immigration (as far as I understand it the figures for both are pretty neck and neck at roughly 180,000 each in the last year), i get the feeling that some people are going to *feel* like there are MORE foreigners and not less.

      Would you be able to give me your thoughts on the above? Do you agree that this could happen and if so, what could we do to ensure it doesn’t cause unnecessary resentment towards a government that may well irritate some of the population by giving them exactly what they asked for.


      Reply NO, I don’t agree with that. What many people voting Leave wanted on migration was some control of overall numbers. The Leave campaign was very clear that we needed to be able to reduce the number of EU citizens coming to take low paid jobs and to enjoy various public services and top up benefits, given the pressure of numbers of housing, school places, NHS capacity and wages. Vote Leave was anti any migration policy based on race or creed. Current policy gives priority to Europeans.

    7. zorro
      July 21, 2016

      Voting Leave clearly implied leaving the EU and its Single Market (a protectionist customs union which costs a lot of money and to which you have to sacrifice border controls by allowing free movement). The media seem to be constantly linking border control with access to the Single Market. That is not necessary. We should off free trade with the EU bloc and nothing else, and not get caught in the spider’s web……


    8. mattghg
      July 21, 2016

      Agree 100%. The option I voted for was “Leave the European Union”. It didn’t ask me about immigration.

    9. Mark B
      July 21, 2016

      Reply to reply

      Can you then please direct me to the website, only I would like to read it ?


  4. Mick
    July 21, 2016

    What’s the point of control when we read stories like yesterday
    I can bet you none of them are sent back, if it was me the doors would be closed and driven straight back across the North Sea and as far as letting the driver off his passport would be ripped up and also deported

    1. Anonymous
      July 22, 2016

      If this continues then Government operates for other peoples, not its own.

      I’d sooner vote Labour in 2020 if this is not brought under control.

  5. Jerry
    July 21, 2016

    “The only issues the UK needs negotiate relate to the basis for continued trade and business links.”

    But that will mean at best negotiating rules about free movement rules and at worst accepting free movement as if we were still in the EU, otherwise we need to accept and make do with WTO rules.

    1. Edward2
      July 21, 2016

      Loads of nations trade with Europe and have been managing to do so successfull, for decades
      None have free movement agreements.

      1. Jerry
        July 22, 2016

        @Edward2; But non have done so as an ex member of the EU, all have done so from a WTO rules starting point, we are in uncharted waters. I have no problem if we (first) need to revert back to the WTO rules, in fact I can see benefits and advantages, both to our domestic manufacturing and any deals we might wish to make with the RotW and the Commonwealth.

        1. Edward2
          July 22, 2016

          And none have free movement of people with the EU

          1. Jerry
            July 22, 2016

            @Edward2; Err wrong, both Norway and Switzerland do, as does Monaco, and Andorra, whilst other countries have visa-waver schemes etc.

          2. Edward2
            July 23, 2016

            Strange how they don’t have millions of new arrivals as others in the EU have
            And nations outside Europe trade with Europe without freedom of movement
            So precedents have been set
            Not uncharted waters as you claim

          3. Jerry
            July 23, 2016

            @Edward2; “So precedents have been set”

            I really do wish you would reply to what I have written and not what you think or hoped I had, what do you not understanding, we are in uncharted waters because no country has ever left the EU before (note: I did not say EEC).

            There are countries in the EU27 who wish to stop such precedents from being set, hence why the SNP received very sort change from at least one country when the SNP suggested (before the iScotland referendum) that continued EU membership for an independent Scotland would be a mere technicality, such EU27 countries might see the same risks should Brexit come with benefits beyond what would be normal EU policy – one of which is acceptance of the (full) “Four Freedoms”.

            Also, you mention new arrivals, again what do you not understand about the fact that once refugees and asylum seekers have had EU papers issued they have much the same freedom of movement within the greater EU as anyone else classed as an ‘EU Citizen’.

          4. Edward2
            July 25, 2016

            Pedantic nonsense

  6. bigneil
    July 21, 2016

    Free movement – or in plain English – the “right” for anyone to reach Eastern Europe, buy a fake passport – and head for the “land of the free” – where ANY link, no matter how small or ridiculous, ensures them that they can stay here on the BBB – Bottomless Benefits Bucket. Contribute nothing then expect, and get, everything on the taxpayer.
    Cuts to services from council to save money ? – no – cuts to services so money can be diverted to the endless queue of people who want to come here and cost us. Flooding this country – which is clearly the aim – with thousands a month from other cultures is only bringing about our destruction.
    etc ed

  7. Denis Cooper
    July 21, 2016

    If it’s to be work permits then the Scottish devolved authorities could be allowed to issue a certain quota which were valid only in Scotland. That way if the Scots really felt they needed more foreign workers than they would get through a UK-wide system they could have them, without them doing what most would want to do and head off to England. I don’t think we could do that now even for workers from outside of the EU, as an EU member state we have to allow free movement of persons throughout our territory.

  8. Antisthenes
    July 21, 2016

    I believe as long as the UK economy stays strong reducing immigration to the 10s of thousands is a wish list. However I do not believe people are against immigrants coming here to work. They want to be choosy and sensible about it. It must be at levels that makes it economically beneficial, not put strain on the infrastructure and do not wish immigrants to have automatic rights to the UK benefits and health system.They do not want criminals and those who refuse to integrate or accept our culture and ways.

    If we base permits for foreigners to reside and work in the UK on the basis of those conditions then we will have a workable immigration control system. We must also have the right to expel those already here who who do not fulfil those conditions. This is especially important because of the very serious terrorist threat we and the rest of Europe face. Those who have criminal tendencies and who do not subscribe to our culture, standards and values evidence would appear to suggest are the ones living amongst us most likely to be radicalised and do us harm.

    The EU negotiations is not about remaining in the common market (although at one time I believed it was). It is about negotiating an equitable trade agreement and formalising the continuance of cooperation between the UK, the EU and it’s member states collectively or bilaterally in areas that it is mutually beneficial to do so. The UK holds a strong hand so if common sense resides in Brussels and the UK holds firm to the principles of Brexit then I cannot see that the negotiations cannot be done and dusted very quickly. Unless of course the civil servants are allowed to wag the dog.

  9. C. Macdonald
    July 21, 2016

    Like the idea of no negotiation on Immigration and the Assumption that trade continues as now with Response if barriers erected.
    However not sure how this approach works in the case of Financial Services.

  10. Denis Cooper
    July 21, 2016

    It’s always said that the EU Single Market is based on four freedoms. Of those, three can be seen as primarily economic in purpose, while the fourth, freedom of movement of persons, is primarily political in purpose. Yes, there can be economic advantages if everybody is allowed to move around freely within the EU (or EEA), but the main purpose of adding on that fourth freedom has always been to gradully weaken the national identities of the member states and make it easier to subjugate them in a European federation.

    If the other countries are adamant that we cannot be part of the Single Market without agreeing to all four freedoms then the answer must be that we will not be part of the EU Single Market, the economic benefits of which are in any case routinely and grossly exaggerated. Instead we must seek a different arrangement to allow us to stand outside the Single Market but continue to trade with the countries which are in the Single Market in the freest possible fashion, as now, for their benefit as well as ours.

    In Northern parts of the blogosphere there is much talk of a so-called “Liechtenstein option”, that principality having secured a dispensation from the normal requirement of free movement of persons before it joined the EEA. (I’m just glad this didn’t get too wide a circulation during the referendum campaign, or the Leave side would have been accused of “wanting to be like Liechtenstein”, even sillier than “being like Albania”.)

    The problem I see here is that Liechtenstein got that dispensation before it joined the EEA and has managed to maintain it since then, whereas the UK not only agreed to freedom of movement from the start but didn’t even apply the permitted transitional controls when the eastern European countries joined the EU.

    1. bratwurst
      July 21, 2016

      Wrong. Liechtenstein is exercising a unilateral right under the EEA rules. It is not a dispensation but a fundamental right under the treaty agreement. The UK can, if it takes the EFTA/ EEA route, exercise the same right.
      Try re-reading properly the ‘Northern parts of the blogosphere’.

      1. Denis Cooper
        July 22, 2016

        There’s no need to be rude.

        “The story starts – and a fascinating one it is – before Liechtenstein joined the EEA on 1 May 1995. We can actually take 10 March 1995 as the beginning, when the EEA Council – part of the formal consultation structure set up under the agreement – looked at the situation dominating Liechtenstein’s entry.”

        “1. A Contracting Party which is considering taking safeguard measures under Article 112 shall, without delay, notify the other Contracting Parties through the EEA Joint Committee and shall provide all relevant information.

        2. The Contracting Parties shall immediately enter into consultations in the EEA Joint Committee with a view to finding a commonly acceptable solution.

        3. The Contracting Party concerned may not take safeguard measures until one month has elapsed after the date of notification under paragraph 1, unless the consultation procedure under paragraph 2 has been concluded before the expiration of the stated time limit. When exceptional circumstances requiring immediate action exclude prior examination, the Contracting Party concerned may apply forthwith the protective measures strictly necessary to remedy the situation.

        For the Community, the safeguard measures shall be taken by the EC Commission.

        4. The Contracting Party concerned shall, without delay, notify the measures taken to the EEA Joint Committee and shall provide all relevant information.

        5. The safeguard measures taken shall be the subject of consultations in the EEA Joint Committee every three months from the date of their adoption with a view to their abolition before the date of expiry envisaged, or to the limitation of their scope of application.

        Each Contracting Party may at any time request the EEA Joint Committee to review such measures.”

        Liechtenstein has got away with it so far, having secured a dispensation from the start, but the UK having granted unlimited immigration rights to all the citizens of other EEA member states it’s difficult to see how it could now use that temporary safeguard mechanism to restrict immigration from those countries for decades, or in perpetuity.

        And how are we going to persuade the Polish government to give the nod to the UK staying in the EEA after leaving the EU, if it knows that the UK government plans to use that provision to limit the free movement of Poles into the UK not just as a short term measure but over the long term?

        1. Lindsay McDougall
          July 22, 2016

          But we don’t want to join the EEA, so what’s the relevance?

          1. Denis Cooper
            July 23, 2016

            Hush, such heresy will get you into real trouble.

          2. Jerry
            July 23, 2016

            @Lindsay McDougall; The relevance is that some would accept EEA membership, and not just europhiles but many a eurosceptic who want to cling on to the EU single market (as if their very economic existence depends on it, perhaps it does…) rather than revert back back to WTO rules.

            Our host writes as if Vote Leave are in control of Brexit, they are not, so what Vote Leave have or have not expressly ruled out is irrelevant, at the moment everything is on the table until the ‘Department for Brexit’ and/or the PM have themselves ruled it out.

            Denis Cooper is quite correct in highlighting the dangerous halfway house that is the EEA, if we are going to have Brexit then it should mean exit.

    2. Mark B
      July 22, 2016


      There is I believe an argument for the renegotiation on the freedom of movement of people.

      When the Single Market was first created the original signatories were fewer and of similar economic strength. Since then more countries have joined and, not all of them could be of similar economic strength. The UK has suffered most out of this and, I believe we should ask for some special dispensation.

      The UK can ask the EU Commission now to suspended freedom of movement. But the process requires agreement. Outside the EU we would be able to do the same for ourselves for up to 2 years. That’s enough to take the pressure off for now.

      In two years the EU, without the UK being dragged along might begin to sort itself out. So the economic push factor might alleviate.

      The problem is, a trade deal will take too long. The WTO idea will be too destructive. EFTA / EEA is the least worst.

      1. Jerry
        July 23, 2016

        @Mark B; You really believe that all the (post Brexit) EU27 member countries would agree to and accept the sort of “renegotiation on the freedom of movement of people” that the UK would wish to see, after all as you said for some the existing rules work best for them…

  11. Ian Wragg
    July 21, 2016

    The Leave vote was won inspite of the official Leave organisation.
    Here in the East Midlands we voted 70/30 for leave.
    If you have the level of immigration we have you would understand why.
    The BBC and lovies are backing the Norway option as it is essentially worse than what we have now.
    I hope Mrs May is unequivocal in stating that free movement is non negotiable.
    You are being watched.
    See the UKIP vote leap if you fudge this.

    1. Jerry
      July 23, 2016

      @Ian Wragg; If the idea is to have Brexit and keep a proper Brexit the worst thing that could happen is a ‘leap in the UKIP vote’ because all that will do is give the europhiles control either outright or by way of a coalition, just as it did in 2010. All UKIP does is split the eurosceptic vote, it has done so though out its history, if UKIP is serious about Brexit, if UKIP is more than just an opportunist protest or egocentric group they would now disband as a political party.

      Oh and we have might EU migration around here, and we also firmly voted Brexit, but no one (beyond a few devoted UKIPiers) were using migrants as a campaigning call because people see that without such migrants our fruit and veg would go unpicked, and worse still, their children would end up having to work on the fields instead…

  12. Anonymous
    July 21, 2016

    Free movement is the main reason why the PM had to promise a referendum.

    Free movement is the reason why we voted to Leave the EU.

    Uncontrolled immigration is the key issue. This must never be forgotten.

    1. hefner
      July 25, 2016

      I didn’t vote Leave because of immigration despite the campaigns putting more and more of their emphasis on it. As already said by some other people here, immigration whether from the EU or elsewhere is what allows UK fruits and vegs to be picked, almost all professional levels in most hospitals and a lot of surgeries to be properly staffed, and a large number of City’s financial services rely on “free movement”.
      Again, as you do not seem to know, according to MigrationWatch, 13.5% of people in the UK are foreign-born and 8% are non-British.
      Part of the “problem” on this site is the very diverse flavours of leavers commenting, from sovereignty- , economy-, to immigration-related people.
      To me immigration is NOT the key issue.
      The referendum was called for internal Conservative Party reasons.

  13. Brexit
    July 21, 2016

    Simply and beautifully put. It’s important that the EU hears this loud and clear, instead of the equivocating waffle about “more control over free movement” which is the line currently coming out of No.10.

    Your readers may be interested in our 2 latest news pieces this morning – one on the giving up of an important bargaining chip to the EU by Mrs May with nothing asked in return, and the other showing graphically the composition of the new Cabinet and the official rank of each position. Brexit Secretary Davis is at No.8….

    Best wishes, the Team

  14. Margaret
    July 21, 2016

    I voted leave mainly because I am at the butt of free movement. It interferes greatly with day to day life, it spoils the NHS, it ruins life for those who like stability and not people wandering in and out of their businesses and lives. It brings an intolerable amount of stress to those who do not wish to learn another 10 languages to communicate with their contemporaries, it brings new illness and disease , it makes drug trafficking, people trafficking easy . It brings the worst out in long stay British residents who have in the past seen this as their homeland and try to fight for their right to have a home, It was a stupid move for a civilised country to think that all would be well and fair with letting anyone wander through the UK.

  15. alan jutson
    July 21, 2016

    Agree John, we need one simple plan where we can control immigration, which applies to all who we would want to come here, no matter from where in the World.

    The important thing is WE MUST BE IN ABSOLUTE CONTROL of all of the aspects, rules and numbers.

    The only worry I ever had with Mrs May was on this point, as she seems to want to keep on talking about control of the free movement of people.
    Sorry, but you cannot control free movement, you either have control or you do not.

    Immigration and trade are not linked in any way in any other part of the World, they are two totally separate policies, and should remain so.

  16. Anthony
    July 21, 2016

    What should our stance be regarding the single European sky, the European Medicines Agency, Galileo and all the other areas which are controlled by the commission?

    The difficulty is that while as members of the EU we have some control over these agencies on which governance of important things like control of airspace and approving medicines depends, as non-members we will, without a special arrangement, have no control. This is a problem as it is clearly important to be able to have a say in how medicines are approved and so on.

    If, on the other hand, we simply set up our own approvals mechanism, what will the impact on the health and pharmaceutical industry be both for imports and exports as the UK and EU agencies will have to recognise each others’ approvals. It would be sensible if they did but these things have to be negotiated.

    I agree that the trade deal is likely to be quite satisfactory. But all these little agencies that we are now embedded in and depend on need to be addressed. How? Can it even be done in two years?

    I would love to hear someone address these points.

  17. Caterpillar
    July 21, 2016

    Mostly I think this is correct, particularly if “adapted for our economic and social needs” is considerate of the effects on lower quartile earners and inequality.

    Nonetheless I do think, admittedly based on the media, that some of the 48% that voted remain, feel that they will be losing opportunities to work in the EU, so reciprocity of labour movement (within a work permit system) may act to unite the UK.

    But overall, I agree freedom of movement should not be a cost of a free trade arrangement.

  18. Old Albion
    July 21, 2016

    After the elation of ‘Independance day’ I am becoming more and more convinced we will not ‘leave’ the EU.
    The failure to enact ‘article 50’ The lack of action, it all leads me to believe Westminster is looking for a fudge.

  19. John Bracewell
    July 21, 2016

    For Brexiteers, the issues aired in this article make sense but there is still a large majority in the HoC, from all Parties, that supports EU membership, they will seek to delay EU exit, if not overturn and to make the exit terms as EU oriented as they possibly can. The passage of any Bills enacting Brexit through the Lords will be even more strongly opposed with further delay. How the Brexit measures are passed with such a small Conservative majority is unclear, that’s if the preliminary discussions with the likes of Sturgeon are not allowed to effectively veto an agreed approach. At some point, in order to make progress, Mrs May is going to have to put the SNP back in its box but that goes against the Union is very precious to me statement made on the steps of No 10. Will Mrs May do that?

    1. Denis Cooper
      July 22, 2016

      Once the Article 50 notice had gone in and been accepted the Remain majorities in Parliament would be faced with a fait accompli, their preferred option of keeping us in the EU would have gone, and they would have to change their attitudes.

  20. The Prangwizard
    July 21, 2016

    I take it you can also smell rats in your new leadership.

    Betrayal on the way it seems.

  21. The Prangwizard
    July 21, 2016

    There is no need to stop people …… coming to invest…..

    Are you saying there should be no controls? No siree! Bring the family, the extended family? Definately NO. What happens if the corner shop goes bust? Benefits for all with your weakness?

  22. Brian Tomkinson
    July 21, 2016

    It does seem that there are many in politics and the media (particularly the broadcast media) who wish to make a simple proposition unduly complicated. Their motive, I suggest, is the hope that it will never happen and that the will of the British people as expressed in the EU referendum will be overturned. We must ensure they do not succeed.

  23. Iain Moore
    July 21, 2016

    We keep on hearing people trot out the mantra that being part of the Single Market is essential , which is then used to corrupt the whole Brexit debate especially over immigration , but so far no advocates of the Single Market have been made to quantify its worth to us. As I have mentioned here before, the only report I have seen on the Single Market suggests its worth to us is peanuts. If we can get some scrutiny on the Single Market , then we might just get a more sane debate about Brexit terms, especially on immigration.

    As to the practicalities of our border controls, I have long since come to the conclusion that the British establishment don’t want to control our borders, for I cannot believe they can be so serially incompetent over so many decades on an issue that the public have made clear they wanted it sorted out. As such with an establishment who will drag their feet on something they don’t want to do, and will most likely sabotage any system put in place, even systems that work well in other countries, then I feel it is important we remove our border controls from their control, or lack of as it were.

    For myself I believe the only way to have functioning border controls here it to put a monetary value on foreign national visitors, an insurance bond they have to lodge upon entry to the UK. Leave in good time then nothing has to be paid, other than the premium, if they don’t leave then the bond is cashed in and used to find them and eject them. This has the advantage of like any insurance policy where the premium paid is dependent upon the risk the insurance company has to cover, so if you come from a group or nationality that has a propensity to abscond, then you have to pay a high premium, which would market regulate the people coming from that group.

  24. forthurst
    July 21, 2016

    “Immigration and trade is not the issue. What is the issue is getting back our sovereignty and holding those responsible to proper account. That is what I voted for !”

    Immigration was the major influence on large swathes of the population who experienced no benefit from immigration and, on the contrary, experienced significant negative consequences for them on the availability of employment, security of employment, wage rates, working conditions, availability and cost of public and private housing, education and healthcare; the proportion of the population whose attitude to the EU was moulded by the EUReferendum is and was statistically insignificant.

  25. Atlas
    July 21, 2016


    As a Brexiter I’m watching what May & Johnson are saying on the single market like a (distrustful) hawk. I wonder how many people will be sacrificed on the Altar of “The Single Market”? – I hope none.

    Keep up the good work!

  26. Roger parkin
    July 21, 2016

    Excellent article as ever John. While everyone around you is trying to complicate matters you as usual get straight to the heart of matter. The referendum was about leaving the EU and taking back full control of all matters including most obviously the numbers and skills of immigrants from everywhere in the world in a fair and manageable way. What concerns me who worked tirelessly for this outcome is that our new prime minister talks about having some control over free movement not ending it. I’m convinced that there is a compromise on the horizon.
    Many of us are worried can you put our minds at rest.

  27. Mockbeggar
    July 21, 2016

    I thought it very kind of the German Chancellor to say that of course the UK needs time to decide on its negotiating goals before implementing Article 50; especially since she has no control over what the UK decides to do or when it decides to do it.

    It seems to me that the whole issue is very simple. We leave; and rely on WTO rules to trade with whomsoever we wish. The basis for trade and business links should be the same as the are for any other country: businesses will create their own business links and the trade basis will be supplying what’s good and (relatively cheap) for us to produce in return for what’s good (and relatively cheap) for us to import.

  28. Auror
    July 21, 2016

    I agree completely with Mark B on this point : sovereignty and independence are the core issues here. Obsessing too much over immigration (didnt see that on the ballot paper) could well be the undoing of what many hoped the referendum would achieve. Take a good look at how the remoaners are playing this : hoping that an ‘inability’ to compromise over free movement will cause a brexit breakdown sending us scuttling right back to ‘mother europe’. Lets not let that happen.

  29. Tad Davison
    July 21, 2016

    My own view might alarm some. I see a fudge coming. A compromise. The BBC never wastes an opportunity to try to sow seeds of doubt in people’s minds, their news is full of it, trying to create a story rather than merely report one.

    I learned long ago not to trust the weasel words and glib assurances of politicians, and if we want to see what a political rattlesnake looks like, there’s Blair, Brown, Cameron, Major, and a host of others to choose from.

    I think this needs to be killed to be decisive, and the sooner the better. The sooner we have severance from the EU, the better it will be. They should get on with it whilst they still can.

    Tad Davison


  30. Al
    July 21, 2016

    Limiting access to benefits might help cut immigration, but part of the problem is low paid labour currently being done by overseas residents. Ironically many of these are roles that UK people can’t take up without losing their benefits because they are earning too much (e.g. minimum wage will not cover the costs of wheelchairs and disabled transport, yet the person may be quite capable of an office-based role that they can’t take without losing access to the wheelchair…).

    There would also need to be a shift in company culture & hiring practices. Currently there seems to be a preference (at least in IT) to hire new EU graduates to come to the country, rather than existing UK residents after redundancy or work returners.

  31. newmania
    July 21, 2016

    The leave campaign as sacred text , that would make an interesting lecture . B Johnson was still claiming new could have closed borders and single market post referendum as were others . If you are selling free bananas you will sell a lot a manifesto it aint .

    Leave claimed we would have a Norway option often and only when it was discovered in the last two weeks that anti-immigrant feeling was the key that leaving the single market was suggested ( as was retaining access to it …)No-one who understood the word going to vote for Brexit anyway .Actually Brexit disproportionately picked up votes where EU migrants are not and the protest was largely against immigration from the sub-continent . The outrageous leave claim that Turkey was about to join the EU was designed to claim the country would be flooded with Muslims so as to connect these subjects . Nice .

    Leave promised an outright dividend . The £350mn per week to the NHS No-one voted to suffer the costs and austerity that a stunted economy battling against the barriers of tarrifs , staff recruitment , compliance will entail .It is sad to hear people talk about the new housing jobs and resources they now expect .
    I dread the sense of betrayal now that the genii of bigotry has been summoned . On the current negotiation we have the same problem as before but with much of the country wanting nothing to do with the whole appalling fiasco , no position to demand anything and a well of ill feeling

    Reply The main point we made was Take back control. We set out a Brexit bonus budget based on the £10 bn net. We always rejected the Norway and Swiss options as we did not want freedom of movement. Please do not lie about these. Matters

  32. Mike Wilson
    July 21, 2016

    As others have said – the question on the ballot paper was ‘Do you want to LEAVE the EU’?

    It’s not that tricky is it? Remain or Leave? Leave or Remain?

    But, what about the millions of ex-pats living in Spain and France? What will happen to them? You can’t just pretend they don’t exist? What about Gibraltar?

  33. Loddon
    July 21, 2016

    I agree with you, but Theresa May yesterday at PMQs twice repeated the oxymoron that we “want to control free movement”. This is deeply worrying because by definition free movement cannot be controlled. It indicates either muddled thinking or a duplicitous plan to agree some sort of free movement or preferential treatment for EU citizens that will prove to be a dangerous problem for the UK for as long as it exists.
    This is the second aspect of Brexit that May has corrupted or confused, because she said that the Brexit negotiation objectives must be agreed by the Scottish Government (as well as Wales and NI) before she will trigger Article 50. If she means what she has said and Sturgeon means what she has said about “protecting Scotland’s membership of the EU” then Article 50 will never be triggered.

  34. David Williams
    July 21, 2016

    A radical suggestion. If we can control who has eligibility to work and benefits, and we can deport criminals, why not join Schengen.

  35. John B
    July 21, 2016

    There seems to be some confusion among politicians, the Commentariat and public about the difference between ‘Single Market’ and ‘Free Trade’.

    Whilst the former includes freedom of movement of labour, the latter involves only freedom of movement of goods.

    Why some are saying that the UK cannot have free trade with the EU without accepting freedom of movement of labour (aka immigration), is either woeful ignorance or mischief making.

    Some may recall that the EEC (1958) originally was a free trade area which did not include freedom of movement of labour, which came with the EU (1992).

    1. Denis Cooper
      July 22, 2016

      No, the 1957 Treaty of Rome did include freedom of movement of persons.

      “ARTICLE 3

      For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include, as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein:

      (a) the elimination, as between Member States, of customs duties and of quantitative restrictions on the import and export of goods, and of all other
      measures having equivalent effect;

      (b) the establishment of a common customs tariff and of a common commercial
      policy towards third countries;

      (c) the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital … “

  36. Chris S
    July 21, 2016

    I rarely disagree with our host and this occasion is no exception.

    It is vital that we keep the negotiations simple and this is exactly the way to do it.

    There is no doubt whatsoever that the referendum campaign was won on an end to FOM, to be replaced by a points system, and a complete end to contributions to the EU budget. We should propose a continuation of present trade arrangements with these two issues as red lines and then make the EU exporting countries do all the running.

    In the face of initial intransigence, David Davies can be relied on to stick with the principles on which the referendum was won but I have severe doubts about the former Remain supporters, particularly those intent on continuing to fight the campaign even though they comprehensively lost the argument. They will cave in, given the slightest chance.

    Mrs May should not waste even one breath trying to remain in the single market, it ain’t gonna happen. Neither should we try for any other kind of existing model. Our economy is bigger than Canada, Norway and Switzerland combined and we should therefore be able to achieve a unique UK deal, something very close to current terms.

    It will obviously require a typical EU fudge. It will have to be called anything other than single market access, but effectively that would what it would be. Our real sticking point has to be over passporting of Financial Services.

    We will have to insist that in return for tariff-free access for German and French cars and French agricultural products, passporting will have to continue.

    I can’t see Mutti Merkel giving us too much trouble over this, given the importance of engineering and car exports to her economy, especially with an election to fight in October next year, just when negotiations will be at a critical stage.

    If she resists, I’m sure her partners in the CSU with their vital Audi and BMW plants in Bayern, and the cynical opportunists in the SDP will be only too willing to do a deal to safeguard all those well paid jobs.

    M. Hollande, however, will, of course, try and make trouble but he will then have to fight his own battle with Peugeot-Citroen, Renault and his farmers if he wants to deny access for the City to continue to take the lead in Euro trading.

    I can see the tractors with their trailers loaded with manure driving up the Champs Élysées already. That may not be necessary, Hollande will be gone by May 2017 anyway.

    He won’t be missed !

    1. bratwurst
      July 21, 2016

      The point is the referendum was purely ‘Leave’ or ‘remain’. Neither campaign has a mandate to determine the route for either. That is a matter for th UK government. The referendum result does not commit us to a stance on EEA membership, freedom of movement or anything else. Redwoods claim to have a plan is totally irrelevant unless the UK government adopts it as their own.

  37. ian
    July 21, 2016

    I think i have written about this 3 times before, that all people coming into the country for work should come under the 600 pound a week rule in operation now for people outside of Europe so they are treated all the same, that means that only british citizens and refuges are allowed any benefits.

    I can hear them in the boardrooms now, keep lobbying government for more refuges 20,000 in 5 years is not right number we need a lot more and with the 600 pound a week rule all over we can start cutting are expensive workers on 1500 pounds a week or less to 650 to 700 pounds a week and with the gap agreement in place since 1994 we do not have to worry about the 40 percent climate reduction by 2030, we can just offshore the rest of the factories, that if we have anything left.
    Should a good time for company profits all round.

  38. Lindsay McDougall
    July 21, 2016

    We cannot control immigration and allow an open land border with the Irish Republic. It’s time that we came clean on that.

    Ending the open land border may trigger a rejection of the Good Friday Agreement by Sinn Fein. Go ahead, make my day.

    1. Bob
      July 21, 2016

      @Lindsay McDougall Anyone entering illegally across the border will be illegal and not entitled to benefits etc. They can be returned to their own country.
      If their identity cannot be established they can be held in detention until the get fed up with the realisation that they will not be allowed to accumulate wealth of any sort at which point they will probably decide to return home voluntarily.

      This is the way the Hong Kong govt dealt with the Vietnamese boat people until the handover, at which point they were deported to Vietnam at the insistence of the PRC.

  39. Alexis
    July 21, 2016

    Thank you. I agree.

    People are treating this so-called ‘free movement’ as unavoidable – as if it has been decreed by a higher power, possibly on tablets of stone. I find people’s helpless acceptance of it quite bizarre.

    There are many other trade blocs outside the EU.

    But they do not allow unlimited migration between countries, and none have attempted to share a currency.

    Why? Because the key motivation is TRADE. Not creating an empire.

    July 21, 2016

    “There is no need to stop people coming here …………to invest and set up businesses if they have their own means of support. ”

    So if you are a foreign cheat, an undetected thief as ALL successful thieves are undetected, a local lottery winner, an heir to a nest egg with no part taken by yourself in its acquirement, a good-looking hairdresser with a well-off boyfriend, part of a foreign syndicate of people who club together and finance one of their members to start ANY kind of business in the UK and then NEED to employ the rest of the syndicate members and bring them to the UK because of the unique products created and in a foreign food restaurant or takeaway then YES we have free movement of those people.Money counts hey?.No, no more immigration. Full Stop. There are so many ways round this notion allowing you to come into the UK and indeed Europe all based based on the size of your wallet.

    Why there should be the free movement of “business” people who are only remarkable in that in very poor countries they have some how…some how…managed to amass a great fortune is wrong.
    Being a rich “business” person from a very poor Third World country should on balance be an excellent reason NOT to admit you to the UK. Not the reverse. Unless we are wet behind the ears.

    July 21, 2016

    We do not need free movement of business people. If they have successful businesses in their own countries then good luck to them. Perhaps they may care to invest in the FTSE 100 companies as a way of retaining their wealth. There is no reason to assume allowing them into our country that their business skills and successes are transferable and, they would be in fact doing our own business people out of expanding or starting their own businesses.

    Hairdressing salons, and Tattoo shops…all of which have been given grants by Local Authorities on the basis the owners are foreigners is not the way forward. Not even if the money to start them is kosher. We have many people here already who can cut hair. Our colleges have been turning them out by the bucket load for years. We have been doing tattoos without foreign intervention since Celtic times 4,000 years ago. These business skills are not required here from foreign free movement. Nor a thousand and one other skills. We are quite good at almost everything. Once in a while we may require an Inuit as even northern Scots are not quite up to the mark in igloo building. Though no doubt they can learn under Mrs Sturgeon’s wise leadership

    1. bratwurst
      July 21, 2016

      Heard of globalisation and all of it’s ramifications? Doubt it. Smell the coffee sunshine:)

  42. Narrow Shoulders
    July 21, 2016

    I suggest that we continue to allow our businesses to employ Europeans for low paid low skilled jobs in the future. Then the whingers can cease moaning about our attitudes to foreigners.

    Of course those businesses should pay all the benefits (including education costs for any children they bring and health insurance) claimed by their European employees plus an £100 per week surcharge to offset benefits paid to the UK citizen who has been denied an opportunity. To be applied to arrivals after June 24 2016.

    1. Narrow Shoulders
      July 22, 2016

      And no benefits to self employed or unemployed Europeans unable to show they were here and in secure employment on 23 June.

      I advocate some kind of means test for Europeans already here and self employed claiming benefits too. There can not be a huge contrition to society in coming over to sell the Big Issue.

  43. ian
    July 21, 2016

    I mean the GPA agreement which allowed companies in the west to offshore to the far east and have their goods made there and send the goods back to the west for sale and make massive profits on the back of it and to back that up they bought in climate change agreement, so the companies could point to the climate change agreement as being the cause of the problem.

    So in 1995 people start buying into tec companies in the west and into companies which were offshoring, what happened in the 60 70 and 80 was happening again, good skilled high paying jobs going and replaced with low skilled jobs or desk jobs which the people were not suit to, by 2000 tec went tits up and took the money with it, so they started on the housing market with low interest rates and mass immigration to make everything look good and are still on that plan today even after going bust again 2008.

    Companies and politicians have destroyed society and made the country unstable also racked up high debts because most workers of today do not produce anything of value and have to live on in work benefits or have to live on out of work benefits or try to get disablement benefits which they are trying to stop, also people visit food banks just to get by.

    Everything is debt lead now because most of the people do not earn the money they should, by the time they paid their uni debt their rent or mortgage, car loan and other loans, ele/gas and so on, they need to take out a another loan because most of their money goes in interest and repayments to the banks.
    Pension are being hollowed out now and working all your life is assured for most people from now on, that if you can get a job, companies pension are over 1 trillion pounds in debt and increasing each year with most of them closing down now or closed to new workers, people private pension are only between 20,000 pounds to 100,000 pounds that if they have one, that because they have not got the money to put into one, the days of the 10% to 12% interest on your pension money is long gone, it about three to four percent now, unless you are in a sipp but then you have to know about investing and with market crash every few years you might fined yourself back were you started.

    Yes the elite, establishment, big companies politicians, council, institution and not least quangos have all done a fine job for themselves while the rest of people wonder what is going to befall them next as the above shuffle they money away offshore or into new ideas so they do not have to pay IHT.

  44. RL Braban
    July 21, 2016

    This was not a feature of the referendum. Nor were any other Brexit plans. There were no plans. This was not surprising in that the referendum had less to do with Britain’s relationship with the EU than the power struggle in the Tory Party.

    Ironically, it will eventually result in their regression.

  45. Roy Grainger
    July 21, 2016

    The Vote Leave “manifesto” is worthless, Mrs May has no obligation to implement any of it, witness her refusal to guarantee residency rights for EU nationals already here. Based on news leaking out of her meeting with Frau Merkel she is also going to negotiate on free movement and you can do nothing at all to stop her.

  46. acorn
    July 21, 2016

    Have you ever thought about the fact that you are stealing skilled people from countries that need those people, to improve the well-being of their own country’s citizens?

    Importing Doctors and Nurses from foreign regimes, for our convenience; means, that the death rate of the population in the countries we stole them from, will increase.

    1. Denis Cooper
      July 22, 2016


      It’s OK if they come for a few years to enlarge their skills and experience which they then use back home. And it’s probably OK if a particularly able individual can make much better use of their talents here than in their home country where the necessary advanced facilities could not be made available. And it may be OK if a country has done the opposite to us and trained more doctors and nurses than it needs or can afford, which I think is said to be case with Filipino nurses.

      But it should always be a consideration.

  47. Peter Plaice
    July 21, 2016

    Well said John. A founding principle of the EU & at it’s heart, is the free movement of labour, so we were ABSOLUTELY voting against this founding principle when we gave the democratic mandate to vote leave.

    A much more sensible system for the UK, particularly after years of open door immigration with all its undesirable consequences is a visa or points based system.

  48. Margaret
    July 21, 2016

    Listening to your presentation at a Codex event I was interested to hear of you speaking about new trade deals with India. Last year on channel 4 news Krishnan took a visit to India and explained that the potential for development there was enormous .We saw streets and trading where the people already exploited would have an improved lifestyle with investment which would benefit both investor and worker. I am impatient to see bilateral improvement in the countries we will surely trade with,

  49. Spinflight
    July 21, 2016

    On the subject of preventing the free movement of people what on earth is the Royal Navy playing at?

    The first sea lord as of yesterday was talking about us maintaining 6 OPVs, yet today it is down to 5!

    The four current River class vessels are used for fisheries protection ( surely something that is going to be a growth market in years to come) and constabulary duties, i.e. preventing illegal immigration both around our coasts and further afield in the med.

    The RN did lease them until 2013, at which point they decided to buy them outright for £39 million. The 4 of them cost £20 million a year to run and are partly funded by an outside agency.

    Not exactly astronomical figures.

    They’ve even used them in place of precious frigates for deployments such as the West Indies guard ship.

    So with three new ones building ( though they now cost £348 million between them) and two further ones promised the Navy plans on retiring the four original and perfectly serviceable ships which are only just over a decade old.

    As the Royal Navy is desperately short of proper warships can the treasury really not find an extra £20 million a year to keep these vessels in active service? Could they not even be used by reserve forces as I really don’t believe that the job of preventing illegal fishing or immigration is one that we have sewn up.

    Just how many illicit cargoes of migrants or fishing vessels acting illegally would each of these hard working craft ( at sea 300 days a year) have to stop in order to pay for themselves several times over?

    The Navy says it can’t afford it’s reportedly £1 billion Type 26s but penny pinching of this order is utterly ridiculous and sends quite the wrong message about how illegal migration is handled.

    Surely worth a question in the house John?

    July 21, 2016

    An utterly frivolous and irrelevant question for everyone or one person but can someone answer please?
    How tall are MPs in general and perhaps in particular?
    Immediately the internet tells me Cameron is 1.85m or, in pounds shillings and pence about 6 foot one. Boris is 1.75 ( 5 foot 9? ).

    The reason I ask is every large grouping of MPs as with those awaiting Theresa May to emerge to give a victory statement outside Parliament appear to have perhaps one really tall male and the rest, maybe because of the camera angle, look about 5 foot ( 1.5m? )
    A Labour guy called Smith appears tiny too.

    I’ve met UKIP members also on dark foggy nights with a chorus of owls in the background: they too appear with one giant and the rest looking for all the world like a massed group of Napolean Bonapartes with a hand tucked into their upper garments. They look a sight.

    Cameron’s 6 foot one is not especially tall nowadays but he appears to tower over President Hollande. ( 1.7m…5 foot 7 ? )

  51. David
    July 22, 2016

    The easiest way to control immigration is to say that immigrants will not get any help with housing for the first 10 years.
    I know bogus asylum seekers who would love to return to their own country but we give them so much help that they can’t face working again.
    Sadly Blair gave them a passport so they will be living in an expensive part of London on the tax payer for ever.

    1. Simon Talbot-William
      July 24, 2016

      I know this has happened but changes in Housing Benefit, Caps, now Universal Credit have made ‘doing nothing’ less attractive, just not sure by how much.

  52. Simon Talbot-William
    July 24, 2016

    Can see your logic John but look at the practical impact of tight border controls! We can not have people being inconvenienced by having to sleep in their cars at our Ports. We need to be cleverer. Practical Solution please.

    Reply The poor d=conditions at Dover have been created whilst we are still full members of the EU, and result from French imposes security checks following the dreadful events in Nice. The UK is offering help to clear the backlog to the French authorities. We need proportionate and targetted responses to terrorism and crimes of violence.

    1. Simon Talbot-William
      July 24, 2016

      Of course, but the chaos is a practical example of what can happen if a knee jerk reaction (in this case by France) isn’t anticipated. What would be an example of “proportionate and targetted response” and then please explain how we avoid making visitors (commercial or tourists) lives impossible when they come to trade/enjoy our country

      Reply You let people with the right passports through relatively easily and quickly and only make those wait where you have grounds to suspect them or where there are unexplained irregularities or unusual features to their documentation. The authorities have wanted and suspected lists which need to be easily used by staff. You may wish in a period of extra security to random sample some apparently straightforward cases just to keep potential terrorists guessing. Such people can be taken into another queue to avoid delays for the bulk of travellers. Even with the current enhanced security the likelihood of identifying a new terrorist unknown so far to the authorities is very low, unless he or she has made a mistake with the documents. The authorities need to have lists of people who have made visits to dangerous parts of the world and who may have been to terrorist training camps.

      1. Simon Talbot-William
        July 25, 2016

        Thank you. I see the theory but in practice the process will need considerable investment and much better management and co-ordination. Also the co-operation of the French (not evident on Friday – having been to Belgium this month it’s fascinating to see how two EU countries – GB & Belgium can have such different border controls with France). Surely the priority is to ensure the disaffected already here (and in France/Germany) are paid far more consideration than at the moment.

Comments are closed.