Why don't hard Brexiteers insist on a hard border to prevent illegal immigration after Brexit? Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?What do hard-Brexiteers want with respect to the Irish border?If climate change impact can be observed in nature, has that had any effect on rural, i.e. farming community, perception of the scientific consensus?Why is having border controls in Ireland so problematic for Irish nationalists?Why is it impossible to leave the Single Market without a hard Irish border?Why didn't Ireland and the UK unify their visa regimes?Why doesn't Theresa May sack hard-Brexiteers from cabinet?What treaties or (written) agreements would a hard border in Ireland breach, post-Brexit?Why can't Northern Ireland just have a stay/leave referendum?How do Brexiteers interpret Trump's insistence on a wall?Would it be plausible to solve the Irish Border issue by unifying Ireland?Why is a “hard border” between Eire and Northern Ireland such a problem for EU/UK negotiations around brexit?What do hard-Brexiteers want with respect to the Irish border?
Is there a service that would inform me whenever a new direct route is scheduled from a given airport?
How do you clear the ApexPages.getMessages() collection in a test?
What's the difference between (size_t)-1 and ~0?
Why use gamma over alpha radiation?
Mortgage adviser recommends a longer term than necessary combined with overpayments
Is there folklore associating late breastfeeding with low intelligence and/or gullibility?
Can I throw a longsword at someone?
Keep going mode for require-package
3 doors, three guards, one stone
Stars Make Stars
What was the last x86 CPU that did not have the x87 floating-point unit built in?
Writing Thesis: Copying from published papers
The following signatures were invalid: EXPKEYSIG 1397BC53640DB551
Blender game recording at the wrong time
Windows 10: How to Lock (not sleep) laptop on lid close?
How to say that you spent the night with someone, you were only sleeping and nothing else?
Should you tell Jews they are breaking a commandment?
Unexpected result with right shift after bitwise negation
When is phishing education going too far?
How to stop my camera from exagerrating differences in skin colour?
How should I respond to a player wanting to catch a sword between their hands?
Can the prologue be the backstory of your main character?
Why is "Captain Marvel" translated as male in Portugal?
Unable to start mainnet node docker container
Why don't hard Brexiteers insist on a hard border to prevent illegal immigration after Brexit?
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?What do hard-Brexiteers want with respect to the Irish border?If climate change impact can be observed in nature, has that had any effect on rural, i.e. farming community, perception of the scientific consensus?Why is having border controls in Ireland so problematic for Irish nationalists?Why is it impossible to leave the Single Market without a hard Irish border?Why didn't Ireland and the UK unify their visa regimes?Why doesn't Theresa May sack hard-Brexiteers from cabinet?What treaties or (written) agreements would a hard border in Ireland breach, post-Brexit?Why can't Northern Ireland just have a stay/leave referendum?How do Brexiteers interpret Trump's insistence on a wall?Would it be plausible to solve the Irish Border issue by unifying Ireland?Why is a “hard border” between Eire and Northern Ireland such a problem for EU/UK negotiations around brexit?What do hard-Brexiteers want with respect to the Irish border?
This is a follow-up to this question about what hard Brexiteers want with respect to the Irish border. It appears that hard Brexiteers are mostly happy to leave this question for the DUP and Ireland to sort out, and they are OK with keeping it a soft border. They see it as a technical issue rather than a crucial aspect of their plan.
What I still don't understand is this: for hard Brexiteers, taking back control of the UK borders to limit immigration is a major outcome of Brexit. Still, they don't seem concerned about leaving the Irish border open, even though it could become a major point of entry for illegal immigration in the future:
- Ireland will keep welcoming EU citizens who could easily cross the border. Ireland could even decide to join the Schengen Area in the future, making it even easier for any EU citizen to reach the British Isles.
- While the UK has an agreement with France (including significant monetary contributions) for France to prevent illegal migrants from crossing the Channel, I'm not aware of any similar agreement between Ireland and France. Thus France has no particular incentive to stop migrants from going to Ireland. This is probably not a problem now, but after Brexit direct trade between the EU and Ireland is likely to increase (since it won't go through the UK anymore), with more opportunities for migrants to try to hide in the lorries going to Ireland and then cross the border.
First question: in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish border a potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK? If not what is wrong in the above reasoning?
Second question: assuming that this reasoning is correct, why don't influential hard Brexiteers campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?
Optional related question: this answer claims that (some?) hard Brexiteers hope that Ireland will follow the UK and leave the EU as well, and that would solve the problem. This option seems very unlikely given that Ireland's economy relies on being part of the EU (let alone the growing Anglophobia in Ireland), but is there any evidence to back this claim?
Note: for the purpose of this question, let's assume that a border is "soft" if people are generally allowed to drive through it on major roads without stopping (as is the case currently on the Irish border). As far as I'm aware, there is no similar case on any EU external border, except with countries which have agreements with the EU to allow for the free movement of people, for instance Switzerland (please correct me if I'm wrong).
united-kingdom brexit illegal-immigration northern-ireland republic-of-ireland
add a comment |
This is a follow-up to this question about what hard Brexiteers want with respect to the Irish border. It appears that hard Brexiteers are mostly happy to leave this question for the DUP and Ireland to sort out, and they are OK with keeping it a soft border. They see it as a technical issue rather than a crucial aspect of their plan.
What I still don't understand is this: for hard Brexiteers, taking back control of the UK borders to limit immigration is a major outcome of Brexit. Still, they don't seem concerned about leaving the Irish border open, even though it could become a major point of entry for illegal immigration in the future:
- Ireland will keep welcoming EU citizens who could easily cross the border. Ireland could even decide to join the Schengen Area in the future, making it even easier for any EU citizen to reach the British Isles.
- While the UK has an agreement with France (including significant monetary contributions) for France to prevent illegal migrants from crossing the Channel, I'm not aware of any similar agreement between Ireland and France. Thus France has no particular incentive to stop migrants from going to Ireland. This is probably not a problem now, but after Brexit direct trade between the EU and Ireland is likely to increase (since it won't go through the UK anymore), with more opportunities for migrants to try to hide in the lorries going to Ireland and then cross the border.
First question: in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish border a potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK? If not what is wrong in the above reasoning?
Second question: assuming that this reasoning is correct, why don't influential hard Brexiteers campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?
Optional related question: this answer claims that (some?) hard Brexiteers hope that Ireland will follow the UK and leave the EU as well, and that would solve the problem. This option seems very unlikely given that Ireland's economy relies on being part of the EU (let alone the growing Anglophobia in Ireland), but is there any evidence to back this claim?
Note: for the purpose of this question, let's assume that a border is "soft" if people are generally allowed to drive through it on major roads without stopping (as is the case currently on the Irish border). As far as I'm aware, there is no similar case on any EU external border, except with countries which have agreements with the EU to allow for the free movement of people, for instance Switzerland (please correct me if I'm wrong).
united-kingdom brexit illegal-immigration northern-ireland republic-of-ireland
Reminder to everyone: answer in answers, not in comments. Comments are for suggesting improvements to the question or asking for clarifications, not for answering.
– V2Blast
2 days ago
add a comment |
This is a follow-up to this question about what hard Brexiteers want with respect to the Irish border. It appears that hard Brexiteers are mostly happy to leave this question for the DUP and Ireland to sort out, and they are OK with keeping it a soft border. They see it as a technical issue rather than a crucial aspect of their plan.
What I still don't understand is this: for hard Brexiteers, taking back control of the UK borders to limit immigration is a major outcome of Brexit. Still, they don't seem concerned about leaving the Irish border open, even though it could become a major point of entry for illegal immigration in the future:
- Ireland will keep welcoming EU citizens who could easily cross the border. Ireland could even decide to join the Schengen Area in the future, making it even easier for any EU citizen to reach the British Isles.
- While the UK has an agreement with France (including significant monetary contributions) for France to prevent illegal migrants from crossing the Channel, I'm not aware of any similar agreement between Ireland and France. Thus France has no particular incentive to stop migrants from going to Ireland. This is probably not a problem now, but after Brexit direct trade between the EU and Ireland is likely to increase (since it won't go through the UK anymore), with more opportunities for migrants to try to hide in the lorries going to Ireland and then cross the border.
First question: in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish border a potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK? If not what is wrong in the above reasoning?
Second question: assuming that this reasoning is correct, why don't influential hard Brexiteers campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?
Optional related question: this answer claims that (some?) hard Brexiteers hope that Ireland will follow the UK and leave the EU as well, and that would solve the problem. This option seems very unlikely given that Ireland's economy relies on being part of the EU (let alone the growing Anglophobia in Ireland), but is there any evidence to back this claim?
Note: for the purpose of this question, let's assume that a border is "soft" if people are generally allowed to drive through it on major roads without stopping (as is the case currently on the Irish border). As far as I'm aware, there is no similar case on any EU external border, except with countries which have agreements with the EU to allow for the free movement of people, for instance Switzerland (please correct me if I'm wrong).
united-kingdom brexit illegal-immigration northern-ireland republic-of-ireland
This is a follow-up to this question about what hard Brexiteers want with respect to the Irish border. It appears that hard Brexiteers are mostly happy to leave this question for the DUP and Ireland to sort out, and they are OK with keeping it a soft border. They see it as a technical issue rather than a crucial aspect of their plan.
What I still don't understand is this: for hard Brexiteers, taking back control of the UK borders to limit immigration is a major outcome of Brexit. Still, they don't seem concerned about leaving the Irish border open, even though it could become a major point of entry for illegal immigration in the future:
- Ireland will keep welcoming EU citizens who could easily cross the border. Ireland could even decide to join the Schengen Area in the future, making it even easier for any EU citizen to reach the British Isles.
- While the UK has an agreement with France (including significant monetary contributions) for France to prevent illegal migrants from crossing the Channel, I'm not aware of any similar agreement between Ireland and France. Thus France has no particular incentive to stop migrants from going to Ireland. This is probably not a problem now, but after Brexit direct trade between the EU and Ireland is likely to increase (since it won't go through the UK anymore), with more opportunities for migrants to try to hide in the lorries going to Ireland and then cross the border.
First question: in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish border a potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK? If not what is wrong in the above reasoning?
Second question: assuming that this reasoning is correct, why don't influential hard Brexiteers campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?
Optional related question: this answer claims that (some?) hard Brexiteers hope that Ireland will follow the UK and leave the EU as well, and that would solve the problem. This option seems very unlikely given that Ireland's economy relies on being part of the EU (let alone the growing Anglophobia in Ireland), but is there any evidence to back this claim?
Note: for the purpose of this question, let's assume that a border is "soft" if people are generally allowed to drive through it on major roads without stopping (as is the case currently on the Irish border). As far as I'm aware, there is no similar case on any EU external border, except with countries which have agreements with the EU to allow for the free movement of people, for instance Switzerland (please correct me if I'm wrong).
united-kingdom brexit illegal-immigration northern-ireland republic-of-ireland
united-kingdom brexit illegal-immigration northern-ireland republic-of-ireland
edited Apr 12 at 0:54
JJJ
6,58022457
6,58022457
asked Apr 10 at 19:32
ErwanErwan
3,0181924
3,0181924
Reminder to everyone: answer in answers, not in comments. Comments are for suggesting improvements to the question or asking for clarifications, not for answering.
– V2Blast
2 days ago
add a comment |
Reminder to everyone: answer in answers, not in comments. Comments are for suggesting improvements to the question or asking for clarifications, not for answering.
– V2Blast
2 days ago
Reminder to everyone: answer in answers, not in comments. Comments are for suggesting improvements to the question or asking for clarifications, not for answering.
– V2Blast
2 days ago
Reminder to everyone: answer in answers, not in comments. Comments are for suggesting improvements to the question or asking for clarifications, not for answering.
– V2Blast
2 days ago
add a comment |
10 Answers
10
active
oldest
votes
What I still don't understand is this: for hard-Brexiteers, taking back control of the UK borders to limit immigration is a major outcome of Brexit.
The UK's immigration controls are already independent from the rest of the EU. The UK's common travel area with Ireland existed for decades before the EU or its predecessor organizations came into being, and it could be ended without the UK withdrawing from the EU.
To put it another way: The question of immigration controls between the UK and other EU countries is entirely independent of the UK's membership in the EU, because the UK has opted out of Schengen. Ireland also opted out of Schengen, and as I understand it the principal reason for that was to be able to maintain the common travel area.
Still, they don't seem concerned about leaving the Irish border open, even though it could become a major point of entry for illegal immigration in the future.
It is already a possible point of entry for illegal immigration, and it has been for decades, yet it does not seem to be a major point of entry for illegal immigration. There's no reason to think that would change.
Ireland will keep welcoming EU citizens who could easily cross the border.
It will be legal for EU citizens to cross the border into the UK, just as it is legal today for a US or Japanese citizen, or a citizen of any other country that enjoys visa exemptions in both Ireland and the UK, to cross the border from Ireland into the UK.
Ireland has an independent visa policy for non-EU citizens, so there are people who can get to Ireland without a visa but who require a visa to enter the UK. Citizens of South Africa are, for example, in that category. These people can easily cross the border illegally into the UK today. The EU has nothing to do with this.
Ireland could even decide to join the Schengen Area in the future, making it even easier for any EU citizen to reach the British Isles.
If Ireland joins the Schengen area, it will be required to put immigration controls on its side of the land border between the UK and its own territory, at which point the UK will have no reason to avoid doing the same. This is why Ireland will not join the Schengen area unless the UK does.
While the UK has an agreement with France (including significant monetary contribution) for France to prevent illegal migrants from crossing the Channel, I'm not aware of any similar agreement between Ireland and France. Thus France has no particular incentive to stop migrants from going to Ireland. This is probably not a problem now, but after Brexit direct trade between the EU and Ireland is likely to increase (since it won't go through the UK anymore), with more opportunities for migrants to try to hide in the lorries going to Ireland and then cross the border.
Juxtaposed border controls do not require France to prevent illegal migrants from going to the UK; they allow the UK to send its own officers to France to do that. The reason this is seen as useful to the UK is that it should reduce the number of asylum applications. Irish officers will be able to inspect vehicles coming from France after they arrive in Ireland, and it is true that an asylum seeker who makes it through this inspection and furthermore manages to reach UK territory without detection could claim asylum in the UK. This route already exists, however. It could become more popular, as you note, if direct trade between France and Ireland increases.
First question: in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish border a potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK?
Yes, it is, just as it would be if the UK leaves the EU with a deal, and just as it is today.
Second question: assuming that this reasoning is correct, why influential hard-Brexiteers don't campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?
For the same reason that the border is open now: Because the costs of provoking more trouble around the Irish border are far greater than the immigration benefit of reducing illegal immigration facilitated by the open border.
With regard to your "optional related question," the real problem with the border is the movement of goods, not of people, because the UK and Ireland are part of the EU's customs union, and the UK leaving that customs union will create a need for customs inspections at the border. That is why some people hope that Ireland will leave the EU; it has nothing to do with immigration. You are correct to note that Ireland is not going to leave the EU, however; current polls suggest 85% support for EU membership.
2
Thank you for your answer. So if I understand correctly, with respect to illegal immigration the situation would be the same or very similar post-Brexit as it is now, right?
– Erwan
Apr 10 at 23:40
1
The UK's immigration controls are already independent from the rest of the EU.
- i don't think so, isn't UK required to uphold EU-imposed refugee quotas?
– hanshenrik
Apr 11 at 6:12
1
At least one part of this answer relies on the UK living up to its promise to retain visa-free entry for all EU citizens. Do the likes of Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, and Jacob-Rees Mogg all support this promise?
– gerrit
Apr 11 at 7:20
2
@hanshenrik The UK and Ireland have an opt-out from EU common asylum and immigration policy (and the UK has opted-in to only limited parts of it).
– Alex Hayward
Apr 11 at 7:24
2
@Tim I'm not suggesting they do, currently. I'm suggesting that they might in the future. It is conceivable that one of them wins a future Conservative Party leadership election (apart from Farage).
– gerrit
Apr 11 at 11:28
|
show 16 more comments
This is why. Last time there were border posts, the IRA blew them up.
Today (10 April 2019) is the 21st anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement.
6
The other answers are good but this hits the nail on the head succinctly. A hard border in Ireland would be synonymous with a declaration of war by the United Kingdom on supporters of Irish Unification on both sides of the border. Even the hardest brexiteer seems to realise that a return to war in Ireland would be a shitty idea.
– Smeato
Apr 11 at 12:10
2
@Smeato Not just on the supporters in Ireland. The reunification efforts had large amounts of international support. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORAID
– Yakk
Apr 11 at 20:02
3
@Smeato eh... about that: belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/brexit/…
– llama
Apr 11 at 23:03
1
I also recall seeing a similar poll of all UK brexiteers claiming something like 60% saying that disruption of the situation in Ireland was an acceptable cost of brexit, but I can't find it now
– llama
Apr 11 at 23:04
4
"A hard border in Ireland would be synonymous with a declaration of war " a tad hyperbolic, even if the underlying premise of it being extremely troublesome is true
– Orangesandlemons
2 days ago
add a comment |
This is more of an addition to phoog's answer, but I think it's an important enough point to emphasize separately, as it seems a common source of confusion. Phoog said:
The question of immigration controls between the UK and other EU countries is entirely independent of the UK's membership in the EU.
The keyword here is "controls". Because stopping legal immigration from the EU is one of the main reasons people voted Brexit. In other words, the worry was not mainly about illegal immigration sneaking in as much the legal one that gets (legally) through the existing controls at UK's borders. So "taking back control" of the border in the UK Brexit debate does not have the same meaning as in the US debate on the illegal immigration through/from Mexico.
Granted, during the Brexit referendum, the specter of Syrian refugees was raised. But these would have also been probably legal as asylum seekers unless (or rather until) rejected as such, which in the case of Syrians was unlikely given the civil war.
7
Because stopping legal immigration from the EU is one of the main reasons people voted Brexit. In other words, the worry was not mainly about illegal immigration sneaking in as much the legal one that gets (legally) through the existing controls at UK's borders. Are you sure that not many people voted for Brexit because of refugees and Muslims? You may underestimate the power of misinformation.
– gerrit
Apr 11 at 7:23
4
@gerrit I agree with your comment, and from what I have seen most UK citizens living in the UK do not understand the difference between the immigration rules and the immigration (EEA) regulations. Why would they? But I think Fizz's basic point is sound: people understood that UK's ability to legislate on immigration was constrained by its EU membership, even if they did not understand the precise effects of that constraint. And the point that the ability to change immigration law does not imply a need to change immigration control protocols is also well taken.
– phoog
Apr 11 at 18:33
add a comment |
in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish border a potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK?
Yes. And if anything, this might prompt the UK to set up some hard borders on its side of the border, much like the EU is discussing border checks on its side for livestock and food, to make sure that no chlorinated chicken from the US or similarly unwanted products (food or otherwise) enter the EU market.
If not what is wrong in the above reasoning?
Ireland, like the UK, isn't part of the Schengen zone.
Also, there technically are border controls (as in passport checks) today at ports (air and sea) between Great Britain (as in the island) and Ireland (as in the island), and between the British Isles (as in the UK and Ireland) and the Schengen zone.
Assuming that this reasoning is correct, why influential hard-Brexiteers don't campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?
Because Brexit itself is a hard enough sell as things are. Putting up a hard border forward to boot means throwing the Good Friday agreement -- a peace deal -- out the window. It's not a good idea to be campaigning on that.
this answer claims that (some?) hard-Brexiteers hope that Ireland would follow the UK and leave the EU as well, and that would solve the problem. This options seems very unlikely given that Ireland's economy relies on being part of the EU (let alone the growing anglophobia in Ireland), but is there any evidence to back this claim?
No, except perhaps in ERG and DUP wet dreams.
add a comment |
The hard Brexiteers don't really care about immigration. Immigration was just a tool they used to get what they really want: economic freedom to exploit the UK. Things like employment rights and financial regulations that derive from the EU limit get in the way of them making money.
The immigration angle was just something they used to get enough people to vote for brexit. Now it's a useful excuse for not honouring the pre-referendum proposals to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union.
4
I downvoted you for what appears to be mind reading. If you have evidence to back up your claims then I will remove the downvote. This isn't a conspiracy theory site.
– iain
Apr 11 at 12:58
1
@iain JRM quoted by the Express: BRUSSELS is planning to impose EU tax policies on the UK and its overseas territories after Britain leaves the bloc in March 2019 in a move branded a "punishment" by Jacob Rees-Mogg. Specifically, this seems to be about the Anti Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD).
– JJJ
2 days ago
1
@JJJ That doesn't support the claims made. Why do you think it does?
– iain
2 days ago
1
This answer seems to be just a conspiracy theory. I agree with some of the comments above mine - this answer has no place on this site unless it can be backed up with citations showing that Brexiteers' motivation is to "exploit the UK" so that they can "make money". In the absence of such evidence, I assert that this answer's premise is false (disclaimer: I am Remainer, but I still think the claims in this answer are ridiculous).
– JBentley
yesterday
add a comment |
Brexiteers require a deal to be formulated that will gain enough support placating the DUP is an important part of this as they are unlikely to receive much support form Labour or the remain supporters in parliament needed to get a majority. It's worth remembering the hard brexiteers primarily want brexit they are simply OK or happy with the UK leaving on harsher terms as long as brexit is delivered.
The issue of the Irish border is perhaps one of the most important issues for any brexit deal as it it isn't a question about some benefit that might be received at some point in the future but something that handled poorly could lead to civil disturbances in Ireland that might even result in incidents in other areas of the UK and potentially island ceding from the UK, this would be a major issue for the government and the conservative party (if they were seen as responsible)
The issues with the Irish border are also a concern for the ROI who would be unlikely to agree to a deal with the UK that doesn't resolve the border concerns in a way that would allow some movement between ROI and Northern Island.
As well as the option of having a soft border into the UK through Northern Ireland there are a number of other options such as having some form of a border in the Irish sea between the Northern Island the rest of the UK. Which can be resolved at some later point (after all brexit is a long game that no-one really expects to benefit from any time soon) and this can be changed later when the support of the DUP is not so important and as an internal matter that doesn't require the EU to be involved . Equally a soft border is an issue for the EU as well and thus brexiteers would take make the argument that as a matter of mutual concern than some kind of resolution would be possible.
First question: in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish border a potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK? If not what is wrong in the above reasoning?
As you say a hard border is a concert for immigration but there options available down the line that might help reduce the impact of such a border on the rest of the UK.
Second question: assuming that this reasoning is correct, why influential hard-Brexiteers don't campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?
Brexiteers are more concerned with achieving brexit than this specific issue especially as there are options that could protect the rest of the UK from the immigration whilst still avoiding civil unrest. They also require support form the DUP for whatever deal can be made.
add a comment |
for hard Brexiteers, taking back control of the UK borders to limit immigration is a major outcome of Brexit
For some of them, maybe. But certainly not all; many of them are globalist libertarians with no desire whatsoever to reduce immigration.
A few points:
"Global Britain" and "go global" were key Leave slogans.- Only one-third of Leave voters cited immigration as their main motive in Lord Ashcroft's exit poll.
- Many key Leave supporters are pro-immigration:
- cabinet member and one-time PM contender Michael Gove speaks approvingly of Britain's "liberal approach" to immigration
- other previous PM candidate Boris Johnson has called for an "open approach", "clashed" with Remainer Theresa May due to his defence of immigrant rights, and called on the government to make a "liberal" case for immigration.
- yet another PM contender, Daniel Hannan, the Secretary-General of the biggest EU-skeptical EU conservative party, is a pro-immigration liberal who has written multiple articles denouncing Remainer claims that Brexit was motivated by a desire to restrict immigration. (One example.)
The narrative that the Brexit vote was motivated by a desire to reduce immigration is common on the pro-Remain Left, but for actual pro-Leave politicians it's often either a secondary objective or something they actively oppose. There's no need to explain why these people are taking positions that go against their values, because they don't go against their values in the first place.
Thank you for your answer. I was assuming that limiting immigration was a consensual objective for Brexiteers indeed, so your answer gives me a better understanding of the Brexit political landscape. In my defense, the Brexit leave campaign was quite misleading on the topic.
– Erwan
Apr 12 at 0:11
+1 although I disagree with the final sentence - "there's no need to explain why these people are taking positions that go against their values, because they don't go against their values". You seem to be forgetting your own point that this only applies to "some of them". There are certainly some anti-immigration Brexiteers (just as there are certainly anti-immigration Remainers), and the question remains valid for those (and thus a complete answer should address the point).
– JBentley
yesterday
add a comment |
First question: in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish
border a potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK? If not
what is wrong in the above reasoning?
Second question: assuming that this reasoning is correct, why
influential hard-Brexiteers don't campaign for a hard Irish border in
order to actually control immigration?
When you stop all traffic at a hard border to check for papers, you slow down commerce. In the age of just-in-time delivery to factories, hour-long waiting periods on the border hurt the economy. The Irish and Northern-Irish had an open border for over 20 years, and they pretty much like that open border.
So, apart from issues regarding terror, the Troubles and the Good Friday Agreement, a hard Irish-Northern Ireland border would hurt the economy.
My guess is, if you find some hard-Brexiteer who makes the case for a hard border in order to tackle immigration, it's unlikely that this one would be from Northern Ireland.
If the UK, at some point in time, finds that the soft border with Ireland creates an immigration loophole, they can always create checks for the connections between the islands of Ireland and Britain, i.e. check everthing that crosses the Irish Channel (flights and ferries). Right now, this is considered as breaking up the UK by many Brexiteers, thus such an additional channel border likely won't make it into any official Brexit plans. Yet, politicians can be quite pragmatic.
1
"If the UK, at some point in time, finds that the soft border with Ireland creates an immigration loophole": anyone in the UK who's thought seriously about this recognizes that the border already creates an immigration loophole, as it has since 1923. The economic angle is indeed important, though, so +1.
– phoog
Apr 11 at 14:15
add a comment |
in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish border a
potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK?
Technically yes, but in reality no. Remember that the UK and the Republic of Ireland will remain in the same immigration zone after Brexit (Common Travel Area, or CTA). In the case of illegal immigration, that immigration will remain illegal after a Hard Brexit. The vast majority of illegal immigration is made up of people trying to cross the channel illegally, either by sneaking into vehicles that are crossing the channel legally, or (more recently) by using dinghies and hoping for the best. Leaving the EU won't change geography, it won't change the CTA, it won't change the fact that vehicles will legally cross the channel, and crucially it doesn't change the desperation of those who are trying to cross. Because the UK already has an opt out I don't see how leaving the EU will increase the thoroughness of the checks performed on incoming lorries*, it is a question of time/space/resources that determines how many vehicles are checked.
Therefore those who seek to enter the UK illegally after a Hard Brexit will still choose to cross from Calais to Dover/Folkestone rather than by first of all going on a much longer ferry crossing to the Republic of Ireland and then exploiting the soft border. It's the fact that the Republic of Ireland is still in the CTA and geography that makes the difference.
Second question: assuming that this reasoning is correct, why don't influential hard Brexiteers campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?
Because they know that a hard border will kill the Northern Irish economy, which in turn will affect the votes for the DUP (and their supporters in the ERG). In a worst-case scenario the economic impact could even make a Border Poll** inevitable, followed by Northern Ireland rejoining the EU by becoming part of the Republic of Ireland. While this would solve the problem of the Irish Border and the Backstop, etc, it is an anathema for many of those who support a Hard Brexit because they are also staunch unionists.
*It may even decrease it. If all vehicles have to be checked due to WTO obligations, they will have less time to check any particular vehicle.
**A Border Poll is the specific name given to a referendum on the future of Northern Ireland within the UK or as a part of the Republic of Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement obliges the UK government to hold a Border Poll in certain circumstances. There is evidence that the Brexit 'journey' has increased support for a Border Poll.
New contributor
add a comment |
Hard Brexiteers' supporters aren't as concerned with migration from Ireland as they are with (illegal) migration from mainland Europe (and in turn from the Middle East).
Second question: assuming that this reasoning is correct, why don't influential hard Brexiteers campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?
Because the Brexiteers aren't particularly afraid of Irish people. Most other answers correctly point out technicalities regarding the border and immigration is mentioned by almost all of them. What they have not yet pointed out is what immigration they are afraid of / worried about.
Indeed, if we look at research, we find the following, from the abstract of a paper titled Is racial prejudice declining in Britain?:
Little evidence is found for the third hypothesis: British reactions towards black and Asian minorities are broadly similar suggesting racial differences may still be the main factor prompting white hostility to British minorities.
Now, as you might guess, Ireland isn't associated with non-white races at all. France on the other hand, is. For this I will provide two pieces of evidence: firstly Nigel Farage's image on a truck associating nonwhite refugees with the EU in his Brexit campaign (first picture) and secondly the Calais jungle (second picture, showing how it's been reported). Indeed, British seem to be more concerned about the Calais jungle than the French (even though Calais is in France), please consider the third picture showing the result from a YouGov poll.
(Image: Philip Toscano/PA)
(Image: northumbrianreflections)
What a depressingly de-humanising picture that one of Nigel Farage is. It's sad that we live in a world where it's considered ok for a politician to stand in front of a photo of people in desperate conditions, and use it to drum up hate in order to support their political agenda.
– JBentley
yesterday
add a comment |
protected by Philipp♦ 2 days ago
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
10 Answers
10
active
oldest
votes
10 Answers
10
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
What I still don't understand is this: for hard-Brexiteers, taking back control of the UK borders to limit immigration is a major outcome of Brexit.
The UK's immigration controls are already independent from the rest of the EU. The UK's common travel area with Ireland existed for decades before the EU or its predecessor organizations came into being, and it could be ended without the UK withdrawing from the EU.
To put it another way: The question of immigration controls between the UK and other EU countries is entirely independent of the UK's membership in the EU, because the UK has opted out of Schengen. Ireland also opted out of Schengen, and as I understand it the principal reason for that was to be able to maintain the common travel area.
Still, they don't seem concerned about leaving the Irish border open, even though it could become a major point of entry for illegal immigration in the future.
It is already a possible point of entry for illegal immigration, and it has been for decades, yet it does not seem to be a major point of entry for illegal immigration. There's no reason to think that would change.
Ireland will keep welcoming EU citizens who could easily cross the border.
It will be legal for EU citizens to cross the border into the UK, just as it is legal today for a US or Japanese citizen, or a citizen of any other country that enjoys visa exemptions in both Ireland and the UK, to cross the border from Ireland into the UK.
Ireland has an independent visa policy for non-EU citizens, so there are people who can get to Ireland without a visa but who require a visa to enter the UK. Citizens of South Africa are, for example, in that category. These people can easily cross the border illegally into the UK today. The EU has nothing to do with this.
Ireland could even decide to join the Schengen Area in the future, making it even easier for any EU citizen to reach the British Isles.
If Ireland joins the Schengen area, it will be required to put immigration controls on its side of the land border between the UK and its own territory, at which point the UK will have no reason to avoid doing the same. This is why Ireland will not join the Schengen area unless the UK does.
While the UK has an agreement with France (including significant monetary contribution) for France to prevent illegal migrants from crossing the Channel, I'm not aware of any similar agreement between Ireland and France. Thus France has no particular incentive to stop migrants from going to Ireland. This is probably not a problem now, but after Brexit direct trade between the EU and Ireland is likely to increase (since it won't go through the UK anymore), with more opportunities for migrants to try to hide in the lorries going to Ireland and then cross the border.
Juxtaposed border controls do not require France to prevent illegal migrants from going to the UK; they allow the UK to send its own officers to France to do that. The reason this is seen as useful to the UK is that it should reduce the number of asylum applications. Irish officers will be able to inspect vehicles coming from France after they arrive in Ireland, and it is true that an asylum seeker who makes it through this inspection and furthermore manages to reach UK territory without detection could claim asylum in the UK. This route already exists, however. It could become more popular, as you note, if direct trade between France and Ireland increases.
First question: in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish border a potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK?
Yes, it is, just as it would be if the UK leaves the EU with a deal, and just as it is today.
Second question: assuming that this reasoning is correct, why influential hard-Brexiteers don't campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?
For the same reason that the border is open now: Because the costs of provoking more trouble around the Irish border are far greater than the immigration benefit of reducing illegal immigration facilitated by the open border.
With regard to your "optional related question," the real problem with the border is the movement of goods, not of people, because the UK and Ireland are part of the EU's customs union, and the UK leaving that customs union will create a need for customs inspections at the border. That is why some people hope that Ireland will leave the EU; it has nothing to do with immigration. You are correct to note that Ireland is not going to leave the EU, however; current polls suggest 85% support for EU membership.
2
Thank you for your answer. So if I understand correctly, with respect to illegal immigration the situation would be the same or very similar post-Brexit as it is now, right?
– Erwan
Apr 10 at 23:40
1
The UK's immigration controls are already independent from the rest of the EU.
- i don't think so, isn't UK required to uphold EU-imposed refugee quotas?
– hanshenrik
Apr 11 at 6:12
1
At least one part of this answer relies on the UK living up to its promise to retain visa-free entry for all EU citizens. Do the likes of Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, and Jacob-Rees Mogg all support this promise?
– gerrit
Apr 11 at 7:20
2
@hanshenrik The UK and Ireland have an opt-out from EU common asylum and immigration policy (and the UK has opted-in to only limited parts of it).
– Alex Hayward
Apr 11 at 7:24
2
@Tim I'm not suggesting they do, currently. I'm suggesting that they might in the future. It is conceivable that one of them wins a future Conservative Party leadership election (apart from Farage).
– gerrit
Apr 11 at 11:28
|
show 16 more comments
What I still don't understand is this: for hard-Brexiteers, taking back control of the UK borders to limit immigration is a major outcome of Brexit.
The UK's immigration controls are already independent from the rest of the EU. The UK's common travel area with Ireland existed for decades before the EU or its predecessor organizations came into being, and it could be ended without the UK withdrawing from the EU.
To put it another way: The question of immigration controls between the UK and other EU countries is entirely independent of the UK's membership in the EU, because the UK has opted out of Schengen. Ireland also opted out of Schengen, and as I understand it the principal reason for that was to be able to maintain the common travel area.
Still, they don't seem concerned about leaving the Irish border open, even though it could become a major point of entry for illegal immigration in the future.
It is already a possible point of entry for illegal immigration, and it has been for decades, yet it does not seem to be a major point of entry for illegal immigration. There's no reason to think that would change.
Ireland will keep welcoming EU citizens who could easily cross the border.
It will be legal for EU citizens to cross the border into the UK, just as it is legal today for a US or Japanese citizen, or a citizen of any other country that enjoys visa exemptions in both Ireland and the UK, to cross the border from Ireland into the UK.
Ireland has an independent visa policy for non-EU citizens, so there are people who can get to Ireland without a visa but who require a visa to enter the UK. Citizens of South Africa are, for example, in that category. These people can easily cross the border illegally into the UK today. The EU has nothing to do with this.
Ireland could even decide to join the Schengen Area in the future, making it even easier for any EU citizen to reach the British Isles.
If Ireland joins the Schengen area, it will be required to put immigration controls on its side of the land border between the UK and its own territory, at which point the UK will have no reason to avoid doing the same. This is why Ireland will not join the Schengen area unless the UK does.
While the UK has an agreement with France (including significant monetary contribution) for France to prevent illegal migrants from crossing the Channel, I'm not aware of any similar agreement between Ireland and France. Thus France has no particular incentive to stop migrants from going to Ireland. This is probably not a problem now, but after Brexit direct trade between the EU and Ireland is likely to increase (since it won't go through the UK anymore), with more opportunities for migrants to try to hide in the lorries going to Ireland and then cross the border.
Juxtaposed border controls do not require France to prevent illegal migrants from going to the UK; they allow the UK to send its own officers to France to do that. The reason this is seen as useful to the UK is that it should reduce the number of asylum applications. Irish officers will be able to inspect vehicles coming from France after they arrive in Ireland, and it is true that an asylum seeker who makes it through this inspection and furthermore manages to reach UK territory without detection could claim asylum in the UK. This route already exists, however. It could become more popular, as you note, if direct trade between France and Ireland increases.
First question: in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish border a potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK?
Yes, it is, just as it would be if the UK leaves the EU with a deal, and just as it is today.
Second question: assuming that this reasoning is correct, why influential hard-Brexiteers don't campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?
For the same reason that the border is open now: Because the costs of provoking more trouble around the Irish border are far greater than the immigration benefit of reducing illegal immigration facilitated by the open border.
With regard to your "optional related question," the real problem with the border is the movement of goods, not of people, because the UK and Ireland are part of the EU's customs union, and the UK leaving that customs union will create a need for customs inspections at the border. That is why some people hope that Ireland will leave the EU; it has nothing to do with immigration. You are correct to note that Ireland is not going to leave the EU, however; current polls suggest 85% support for EU membership.
2
Thank you for your answer. So if I understand correctly, with respect to illegal immigration the situation would be the same or very similar post-Brexit as it is now, right?
– Erwan
Apr 10 at 23:40
1
The UK's immigration controls are already independent from the rest of the EU.
- i don't think so, isn't UK required to uphold EU-imposed refugee quotas?
– hanshenrik
Apr 11 at 6:12
1
At least one part of this answer relies on the UK living up to its promise to retain visa-free entry for all EU citizens. Do the likes of Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, and Jacob-Rees Mogg all support this promise?
– gerrit
Apr 11 at 7:20
2
@hanshenrik The UK and Ireland have an opt-out from EU common asylum and immigration policy (and the UK has opted-in to only limited parts of it).
– Alex Hayward
Apr 11 at 7:24
2
@Tim I'm not suggesting they do, currently. I'm suggesting that they might in the future. It is conceivable that one of them wins a future Conservative Party leadership election (apart from Farage).
– gerrit
Apr 11 at 11:28
|
show 16 more comments
What I still don't understand is this: for hard-Brexiteers, taking back control of the UK borders to limit immigration is a major outcome of Brexit.
The UK's immigration controls are already independent from the rest of the EU. The UK's common travel area with Ireland existed for decades before the EU or its predecessor organizations came into being, and it could be ended without the UK withdrawing from the EU.
To put it another way: The question of immigration controls between the UK and other EU countries is entirely independent of the UK's membership in the EU, because the UK has opted out of Schengen. Ireland also opted out of Schengen, and as I understand it the principal reason for that was to be able to maintain the common travel area.
Still, they don't seem concerned about leaving the Irish border open, even though it could become a major point of entry for illegal immigration in the future.
It is already a possible point of entry for illegal immigration, and it has been for decades, yet it does not seem to be a major point of entry for illegal immigration. There's no reason to think that would change.
Ireland will keep welcoming EU citizens who could easily cross the border.
It will be legal for EU citizens to cross the border into the UK, just as it is legal today for a US or Japanese citizen, or a citizen of any other country that enjoys visa exemptions in both Ireland and the UK, to cross the border from Ireland into the UK.
Ireland has an independent visa policy for non-EU citizens, so there are people who can get to Ireland without a visa but who require a visa to enter the UK. Citizens of South Africa are, for example, in that category. These people can easily cross the border illegally into the UK today. The EU has nothing to do with this.
Ireland could even decide to join the Schengen Area in the future, making it even easier for any EU citizen to reach the British Isles.
If Ireland joins the Schengen area, it will be required to put immigration controls on its side of the land border between the UK and its own territory, at which point the UK will have no reason to avoid doing the same. This is why Ireland will not join the Schengen area unless the UK does.
While the UK has an agreement with France (including significant monetary contribution) for France to prevent illegal migrants from crossing the Channel, I'm not aware of any similar agreement between Ireland and France. Thus France has no particular incentive to stop migrants from going to Ireland. This is probably not a problem now, but after Brexit direct trade between the EU and Ireland is likely to increase (since it won't go through the UK anymore), with more opportunities for migrants to try to hide in the lorries going to Ireland and then cross the border.
Juxtaposed border controls do not require France to prevent illegal migrants from going to the UK; they allow the UK to send its own officers to France to do that. The reason this is seen as useful to the UK is that it should reduce the number of asylum applications. Irish officers will be able to inspect vehicles coming from France after they arrive in Ireland, and it is true that an asylum seeker who makes it through this inspection and furthermore manages to reach UK territory without detection could claim asylum in the UK. This route already exists, however. It could become more popular, as you note, if direct trade between France and Ireland increases.
First question: in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish border a potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK?
Yes, it is, just as it would be if the UK leaves the EU with a deal, and just as it is today.
Second question: assuming that this reasoning is correct, why influential hard-Brexiteers don't campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?
For the same reason that the border is open now: Because the costs of provoking more trouble around the Irish border are far greater than the immigration benefit of reducing illegal immigration facilitated by the open border.
With regard to your "optional related question," the real problem with the border is the movement of goods, not of people, because the UK and Ireland are part of the EU's customs union, and the UK leaving that customs union will create a need for customs inspections at the border. That is why some people hope that Ireland will leave the EU; it has nothing to do with immigration. You are correct to note that Ireland is not going to leave the EU, however; current polls suggest 85% support for EU membership.
What I still don't understand is this: for hard-Brexiteers, taking back control of the UK borders to limit immigration is a major outcome of Brexit.
The UK's immigration controls are already independent from the rest of the EU. The UK's common travel area with Ireland existed for decades before the EU or its predecessor organizations came into being, and it could be ended without the UK withdrawing from the EU.
To put it another way: The question of immigration controls between the UK and other EU countries is entirely independent of the UK's membership in the EU, because the UK has opted out of Schengen. Ireland also opted out of Schengen, and as I understand it the principal reason for that was to be able to maintain the common travel area.
Still, they don't seem concerned about leaving the Irish border open, even though it could become a major point of entry for illegal immigration in the future.
It is already a possible point of entry for illegal immigration, and it has been for decades, yet it does not seem to be a major point of entry for illegal immigration. There's no reason to think that would change.
Ireland will keep welcoming EU citizens who could easily cross the border.
It will be legal for EU citizens to cross the border into the UK, just as it is legal today for a US or Japanese citizen, or a citizen of any other country that enjoys visa exemptions in both Ireland and the UK, to cross the border from Ireland into the UK.
Ireland has an independent visa policy for non-EU citizens, so there are people who can get to Ireland without a visa but who require a visa to enter the UK. Citizens of South Africa are, for example, in that category. These people can easily cross the border illegally into the UK today. The EU has nothing to do with this.
Ireland could even decide to join the Schengen Area in the future, making it even easier for any EU citizen to reach the British Isles.
If Ireland joins the Schengen area, it will be required to put immigration controls on its side of the land border between the UK and its own territory, at which point the UK will have no reason to avoid doing the same. This is why Ireland will not join the Schengen area unless the UK does.
While the UK has an agreement with France (including significant monetary contribution) for France to prevent illegal migrants from crossing the Channel, I'm not aware of any similar agreement between Ireland and France. Thus France has no particular incentive to stop migrants from going to Ireland. This is probably not a problem now, but after Brexit direct trade between the EU and Ireland is likely to increase (since it won't go through the UK anymore), with more opportunities for migrants to try to hide in the lorries going to Ireland and then cross the border.
Juxtaposed border controls do not require France to prevent illegal migrants from going to the UK; they allow the UK to send its own officers to France to do that. The reason this is seen as useful to the UK is that it should reduce the number of asylum applications. Irish officers will be able to inspect vehicles coming from France after they arrive in Ireland, and it is true that an asylum seeker who makes it through this inspection and furthermore manages to reach UK territory without detection could claim asylum in the UK. This route already exists, however. It could become more popular, as you note, if direct trade between France and Ireland increases.
First question: in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish border a potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK?
Yes, it is, just as it would be if the UK leaves the EU with a deal, and just as it is today.
Second question: assuming that this reasoning is correct, why influential hard-Brexiteers don't campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?
For the same reason that the border is open now: Because the costs of provoking more trouble around the Irish border are far greater than the immigration benefit of reducing illegal immigration facilitated by the open border.
With regard to your "optional related question," the real problem with the border is the movement of goods, not of people, because the UK and Ireland are part of the EU's customs union, and the UK leaving that customs union will create a need for customs inspections at the border. That is why some people hope that Ireland will leave the EU; it has nothing to do with immigration. You are correct to note that Ireland is not going to leave the EU, however; current polls suggest 85% support for EU membership.
edited yesterday
answered Apr 10 at 21:23
phoogphoog
3,68411424
3,68411424
2
Thank you for your answer. So if I understand correctly, with respect to illegal immigration the situation would be the same or very similar post-Brexit as it is now, right?
– Erwan
Apr 10 at 23:40
1
The UK's immigration controls are already independent from the rest of the EU.
- i don't think so, isn't UK required to uphold EU-imposed refugee quotas?
– hanshenrik
Apr 11 at 6:12
1
At least one part of this answer relies on the UK living up to its promise to retain visa-free entry for all EU citizens. Do the likes of Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, and Jacob-Rees Mogg all support this promise?
– gerrit
Apr 11 at 7:20
2
@hanshenrik The UK and Ireland have an opt-out from EU common asylum and immigration policy (and the UK has opted-in to only limited parts of it).
– Alex Hayward
Apr 11 at 7:24
2
@Tim I'm not suggesting they do, currently. I'm suggesting that they might in the future. It is conceivable that one of them wins a future Conservative Party leadership election (apart from Farage).
– gerrit
Apr 11 at 11:28
|
show 16 more comments
2
Thank you for your answer. So if I understand correctly, with respect to illegal immigration the situation would be the same or very similar post-Brexit as it is now, right?
– Erwan
Apr 10 at 23:40
1
The UK's immigration controls are already independent from the rest of the EU.
- i don't think so, isn't UK required to uphold EU-imposed refugee quotas?
– hanshenrik
Apr 11 at 6:12
1
At least one part of this answer relies on the UK living up to its promise to retain visa-free entry for all EU citizens. Do the likes of Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, and Jacob-Rees Mogg all support this promise?
– gerrit
Apr 11 at 7:20
2
@hanshenrik The UK and Ireland have an opt-out from EU common asylum and immigration policy (and the UK has opted-in to only limited parts of it).
– Alex Hayward
Apr 11 at 7:24
2
@Tim I'm not suggesting they do, currently. I'm suggesting that they might in the future. It is conceivable that one of them wins a future Conservative Party leadership election (apart from Farage).
– gerrit
Apr 11 at 11:28
2
2
Thank you for your answer. So if I understand correctly, with respect to illegal immigration the situation would be the same or very similar post-Brexit as it is now, right?
– Erwan
Apr 10 at 23:40
Thank you for your answer. So if I understand correctly, with respect to illegal immigration the situation would be the same or very similar post-Brexit as it is now, right?
– Erwan
Apr 10 at 23:40
1
1
The UK's immigration controls are already independent from the rest of the EU.
- i don't think so, isn't UK required to uphold EU-imposed refugee quotas?– hanshenrik
Apr 11 at 6:12
The UK's immigration controls are already independent from the rest of the EU.
- i don't think so, isn't UK required to uphold EU-imposed refugee quotas?– hanshenrik
Apr 11 at 6:12
1
1
At least one part of this answer relies on the UK living up to its promise to retain visa-free entry for all EU citizens. Do the likes of Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, and Jacob-Rees Mogg all support this promise?
– gerrit
Apr 11 at 7:20
At least one part of this answer relies on the UK living up to its promise to retain visa-free entry for all EU citizens. Do the likes of Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, and Jacob-Rees Mogg all support this promise?
– gerrit
Apr 11 at 7:20
2
2
@hanshenrik The UK and Ireland have an opt-out from EU common asylum and immigration policy (and the UK has opted-in to only limited parts of it).
– Alex Hayward
Apr 11 at 7:24
@hanshenrik The UK and Ireland have an opt-out from EU common asylum and immigration policy (and the UK has opted-in to only limited parts of it).
– Alex Hayward
Apr 11 at 7:24
2
2
@Tim I'm not suggesting they do, currently. I'm suggesting that they might in the future. It is conceivable that one of them wins a future Conservative Party leadership election (apart from Farage).
– gerrit
Apr 11 at 11:28
@Tim I'm not suggesting they do, currently. I'm suggesting that they might in the future. It is conceivable that one of them wins a future Conservative Party leadership election (apart from Farage).
– gerrit
Apr 11 at 11:28
|
show 16 more comments
This is why. Last time there were border posts, the IRA blew them up.
Today (10 April 2019) is the 21st anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement.
6
The other answers are good but this hits the nail on the head succinctly. A hard border in Ireland would be synonymous with a declaration of war by the United Kingdom on supporters of Irish Unification on both sides of the border. Even the hardest brexiteer seems to realise that a return to war in Ireland would be a shitty idea.
– Smeato
Apr 11 at 12:10
2
@Smeato Not just on the supporters in Ireland. The reunification efforts had large amounts of international support. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORAID
– Yakk
Apr 11 at 20:02
3
@Smeato eh... about that: belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/brexit/…
– llama
Apr 11 at 23:03
1
I also recall seeing a similar poll of all UK brexiteers claiming something like 60% saying that disruption of the situation in Ireland was an acceptable cost of brexit, but I can't find it now
– llama
Apr 11 at 23:04
4
"A hard border in Ireland would be synonymous with a declaration of war " a tad hyperbolic, even if the underlying premise of it being extremely troublesome is true
– Orangesandlemons
2 days ago
add a comment |
This is why. Last time there were border posts, the IRA blew them up.
Today (10 April 2019) is the 21st anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement.
6
The other answers are good but this hits the nail on the head succinctly. A hard border in Ireland would be synonymous with a declaration of war by the United Kingdom on supporters of Irish Unification on both sides of the border. Even the hardest brexiteer seems to realise that a return to war in Ireland would be a shitty idea.
– Smeato
Apr 11 at 12:10
2
@Smeato Not just on the supporters in Ireland. The reunification efforts had large amounts of international support. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORAID
– Yakk
Apr 11 at 20:02
3
@Smeato eh... about that: belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/brexit/…
– llama
Apr 11 at 23:03
1
I also recall seeing a similar poll of all UK brexiteers claiming something like 60% saying that disruption of the situation in Ireland was an acceptable cost of brexit, but I can't find it now
– llama
Apr 11 at 23:04
4
"A hard border in Ireland would be synonymous with a declaration of war " a tad hyperbolic, even if the underlying premise of it being extremely troublesome is true
– Orangesandlemons
2 days ago
add a comment |
This is why. Last time there were border posts, the IRA blew them up.
Today (10 April 2019) is the 21st anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement.
This is why. Last time there were border posts, the IRA blew them up.
Today (10 April 2019) is the 21st anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement.
answered Apr 10 at 20:28
pjc50pjc50
8,96912039
8,96912039
6
The other answers are good but this hits the nail on the head succinctly. A hard border in Ireland would be synonymous with a declaration of war by the United Kingdom on supporters of Irish Unification on both sides of the border. Even the hardest brexiteer seems to realise that a return to war in Ireland would be a shitty idea.
– Smeato
Apr 11 at 12:10
2
@Smeato Not just on the supporters in Ireland. The reunification efforts had large amounts of international support. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORAID
– Yakk
Apr 11 at 20:02
3
@Smeato eh... about that: belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/brexit/…
– llama
Apr 11 at 23:03
1
I also recall seeing a similar poll of all UK brexiteers claiming something like 60% saying that disruption of the situation in Ireland was an acceptable cost of brexit, but I can't find it now
– llama
Apr 11 at 23:04
4
"A hard border in Ireland would be synonymous with a declaration of war " a tad hyperbolic, even if the underlying premise of it being extremely troublesome is true
– Orangesandlemons
2 days ago
add a comment |
6
The other answers are good but this hits the nail on the head succinctly. A hard border in Ireland would be synonymous with a declaration of war by the United Kingdom on supporters of Irish Unification on both sides of the border. Even the hardest brexiteer seems to realise that a return to war in Ireland would be a shitty idea.
– Smeato
Apr 11 at 12:10
2
@Smeato Not just on the supporters in Ireland. The reunification efforts had large amounts of international support. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORAID
– Yakk
Apr 11 at 20:02
3
@Smeato eh... about that: belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/brexit/…
– llama
Apr 11 at 23:03
1
I also recall seeing a similar poll of all UK brexiteers claiming something like 60% saying that disruption of the situation in Ireland was an acceptable cost of brexit, but I can't find it now
– llama
Apr 11 at 23:04
4
"A hard border in Ireland would be synonymous with a declaration of war " a tad hyperbolic, even if the underlying premise of it being extremely troublesome is true
– Orangesandlemons
2 days ago
6
6
The other answers are good but this hits the nail on the head succinctly. A hard border in Ireland would be synonymous with a declaration of war by the United Kingdom on supporters of Irish Unification on both sides of the border. Even the hardest brexiteer seems to realise that a return to war in Ireland would be a shitty idea.
– Smeato
Apr 11 at 12:10
The other answers are good but this hits the nail on the head succinctly. A hard border in Ireland would be synonymous with a declaration of war by the United Kingdom on supporters of Irish Unification on both sides of the border. Even the hardest brexiteer seems to realise that a return to war in Ireland would be a shitty idea.
– Smeato
Apr 11 at 12:10
2
2
@Smeato Not just on the supporters in Ireland. The reunification efforts had large amounts of international support. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORAID
– Yakk
Apr 11 at 20:02
@Smeato Not just on the supporters in Ireland. The reunification efforts had large amounts of international support. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORAID
– Yakk
Apr 11 at 20:02
3
3
@Smeato eh... about that: belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/brexit/…
– llama
Apr 11 at 23:03
@Smeato eh... about that: belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/brexit/…
– llama
Apr 11 at 23:03
1
1
I also recall seeing a similar poll of all UK brexiteers claiming something like 60% saying that disruption of the situation in Ireland was an acceptable cost of brexit, but I can't find it now
– llama
Apr 11 at 23:04
I also recall seeing a similar poll of all UK brexiteers claiming something like 60% saying that disruption of the situation in Ireland was an acceptable cost of brexit, but I can't find it now
– llama
Apr 11 at 23:04
4
4
"A hard border in Ireland would be synonymous with a declaration of war " a tad hyperbolic, even if the underlying premise of it being extremely troublesome is true
– Orangesandlemons
2 days ago
"A hard border in Ireland would be synonymous with a declaration of war " a tad hyperbolic, even if the underlying premise of it being extremely troublesome is true
– Orangesandlemons
2 days ago
add a comment |
This is more of an addition to phoog's answer, but I think it's an important enough point to emphasize separately, as it seems a common source of confusion. Phoog said:
The question of immigration controls between the UK and other EU countries is entirely independent of the UK's membership in the EU.
The keyword here is "controls". Because stopping legal immigration from the EU is one of the main reasons people voted Brexit. In other words, the worry was not mainly about illegal immigration sneaking in as much the legal one that gets (legally) through the existing controls at UK's borders. So "taking back control" of the border in the UK Brexit debate does not have the same meaning as in the US debate on the illegal immigration through/from Mexico.
Granted, during the Brexit referendum, the specter of Syrian refugees was raised. But these would have also been probably legal as asylum seekers unless (or rather until) rejected as such, which in the case of Syrians was unlikely given the civil war.
7
Because stopping legal immigration from the EU is one of the main reasons people voted Brexit. In other words, the worry was not mainly about illegal immigration sneaking in as much the legal one that gets (legally) through the existing controls at UK's borders. Are you sure that not many people voted for Brexit because of refugees and Muslims? You may underestimate the power of misinformation.
– gerrit
Apr 11 at 7:23
4
@gerrit I agree with your comment, and from what I have seen most UK citizens living in the UK do not understand the difference between the immigration rules and the immigration (EEA) regulations. Why would they? But I think Fizz's basic point is sound: people understood that UK's ability to legislate on immigration was constrained by its EU membership, even if they did not understand the precise effects of that constraint. And the point that the ability to change immigration law does not imply a need to change immigration control protocols is also well taken.
– phoog
Apr 11 at 18:33
add a comment |
This is more of an addition to phoog's answer, but I think it's an important enough point to emphasize separately, as it seems a common source of confusion. Phoog said:
The question of immigration controls between the UK and other EU countries is entirely independent of the UK's membership in the EU.
The keyword here is "controls". Because stopping legal immigration from the EU is one of the main reasons people voted Brexit. In other words, the worry was not mainly about illegal immigration sneaking in as much the legal one that gets (legally) through the existing controls at UK's borders. So "taking back control" of the border in the UK Brexit debate does not have the same meaning as in the US debate on the illegal immigration through/from Mexico.
Granted, during the Brexit referendum, the specter of Syrian refugees was raised. But these would have also been probably legal as asylum seekers unless (or rather until) rejected as such, which in the case of Syrians was unlikely given the civil war.
7
Because stopping legal immigration from the EU is one of the main reasons people voted Brexit. In other words, the worry was not mainly about illegal immigration sneaking in as much the legal one that gets (legally) through the existing controls at UK's borders. Are you sure that not many people voted for Brexit because of refugees and Muslims? You may underestimate the power of misinformation.
– gerrit
Apr 11 at 7:23
4
@gerrit I agree with your comment, and from what I have seen most UK citizens living in the UK do not understand the difference between the immigration rules and the immigration (EEA) regulations. Why would they? But I think Fizz's basic point is sound: people understood that UK's ability to legislate on immigration was constrained by its EU membership, even if they did not understand the precise effects of that constraint. And the point that the ability to change immigration law does not imply a need to change immigration control protocols is also well taken.
– phoog
Apr 11 at 18:33
add a comment |
This is more of an addition to phoog's answer, but I think it's an important enough point to emphasize separately, as it seems a common source of confusion. Phoog said:
The question of immigration controls between the UK and other EU countries is entirely independent of the UK's membership in the EU.
The keyword here is "controls". Because stopping legal immigration from the EU is one of the main reasons people voted Brexit. In other words, the worry was not mainly about illegal immigration sneaking in as much the legal one that gets (legally) through the existing controls at UK's borders. So "taking back control" of the border in the UK Brexit debate does not have the same meaning as in the US debate on the illegal immigration through/from Mexico.
Granted, during the Brexit referendum, the specter of Syrian refugees was raised. But these would have also been probably legal as asylum seekers unless (or rather until) rejected as such, which in the case of Syrians was unlikely given the civil war.
This is more of an addition to phoog's answer, but I think it's an important enough point to emphasize separately, as it seems a common source of confusion. Phoog said:
The question of immigration controls between the UK and other EU countries is entirely independent of the UK's membership in the EU.
The keyword here is "controls". Because stopping legal immigration from the EU is one of the main reasons people voted Brexit. In other words, the worry was not mainly about illegal immigration sneaking in as much the legal one that gets (legally) through the existing controls at UK's borders. So "taking back control" of the border in the UK Brexit debate does not have the same meaning as in the US debate on the illegal immigration through/from Mexico.
Granted, during the Brexit referendum, the specter of Syrian refugees was raised. But these would have also been probably legal as asylum seekers unless (or rather until) rejected as such, which in the case of Syrians was unlikely given the civil war.
edited 2 days ago
V2Blast
1307
1307
answered Apr 10 at 22:23
FizzFizz
15.3k23798
15.3k23798
7
Because stopping legal immigration from the EU is one of the main reasons people voted Brexit. In other words, the worry was not mainly about illegal immigration sneaking in as much the legal one that gets (legally) through the existing controls at UK's borders. Are you sure that not many people voted for Brexit because of refugees and Muslims? You may underestimate the power of misinformation.
– gerrit
Apr 11 at 7:23
4
@gerrit I agree with your comment, and from what I have seen most UK citizens living in the UK do not understand the difference between the immigration rules and the immigration (EEA) regulations. Why would they? But I think Fizz's basic point is sound: people understood that UK's ability to legislate on immigration was constrained by its EU membership, even if they did not understand the precise effects of that constraint. And the point that the ability to change immigration law does not imply a need to change immigration control protocols is also well taken.
– phoog
Apr 11 at 18:33
add a comment |
7
Because stopping legal immigration from the EU is one of the main reasons people voted Brexit. In other words, the worry was not mainly about illegal immigration sneaking in as much the legal one that gets (legally) through the existing controls at UK's borders. Are you sure that not many people voted for Brexit because of refugees and Muslims? You may underestimate the power of misinformation.
– gerrit
Apr 11 at 7:23
4
@gerrit I agree with your comment, and from what I have seen most UK citizens living in the UK do not understand the difference between the immigration rules and the immigration (EEA) regulations. Why would they? But I think Fizz's basic point is sound: people understood that UK's ability to legislate on immigration was constrained by its EU membership, even if they did not understand the precise effects of that constraint. And the point that the ability to change immigration law does not imply a need to change immigration control protocols is also well taken.
– phoog
Apr 11 at 18:33
7
7
Because stopping legal immigration from the EU is one of the main reasons people voted Brexit. In other words, the worry was not mainly about illegal immigration sneaking in as much the legal one that gets (legally) through the existing controls at UK's borders. Are you sure that not many people voted for Brexit because of refugees and Muslims? You may underestimate the power of misinformation.
– gerrit
Apr 11 at 7:23
Because stopping legal immigration from the EU is one of the main reasons people voted Brexit. In other words, the worry was not mainly about illegal immigration sneaking in as much the legal one that gets (legally) through the existing controls at UK's borders. Are you sure that not many people voted for Brexit because of refugees and Muslims? You may underestimate the power of misinformation.
– gerrit
Apr 11 at 7:23
4
4
@gerrit I agree with your comment, and from what I have seen most UK citizens living in the UK do not understand the difference between the immigration rules and the immigration (EEA) regulations. Why would they? But I think Fizz's basic point is sound: people understood that UK's ability to legislate on immigration was constrained by its EU membership, even if they did not understand the precise effects of that constraint. And the point that the ability to change immigration law does not imply a need to change immigration control protocols is also well taken.
– phoog
Apr 11 at 18:33
@gerrit I agree with your comment, and from what I have seen most UK citizens living in the UK do not understand the difference between the immigration rules and the immigration (EEA) regulations. Why would they? But I think Fizz's basic point is sound: people understood that UK's ability to legislate on immigration was constrained by its EU membership, even if they did not understand the precise effects of that constraint. And the point that the ability to change immigration law does not imply a need to change immigration control protocols is also well taken.
– phoog
Apr 11 at 18:33
add a comment |
in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish border a potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK?
Yes. And if anything, this might prompt the UK to set up some hard borders on its side of the border, much like the EU is discussing border checks on its side for livestock and food, to make sure that no chlorinated chicken from the US or similarly unwanted products (food or otherwise) enter the EU market.
If not what is wrong in the above reasoning?
Ireland, like the UK, isn't part of the Schengen zone.
Also, there technically are border controls (as in passport checks) today at ports (air and sea) between Great Britain (as in the island) and Ireland (as in the island), and between the British Isles (as in the UK and Ireland) and the Schengen zone.
Assuming that this reasoning is correct, why influential hard-Brexiteers don't campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?
Because Brexit itself is a hard enough sell as things are. Putting up a hard border forward to boot means throwing the Good Friday agreement -- a peace deal -- out the window. It's not a good idea to be campaigning on that.
this answer claims that (some?) hard-Brexiteers hope that Ireland would follow the UK and leave the EU as well, and that would solve the problem. This options seems very unlikely given that Ireland's economy relies on being part of the EU (let alone the growing anglophobia in Ireland), but is there any evidence to back this claim?
No, except perhaps in ERG and DUP wet dreams.
add a comment |
in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish border a potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK?
Yes. And if anything, this might prompt the UK to set up some hard borders on its side of the border, much like the EU is discussing border checks on its side for livestock and food, to make sure that no chlorinated chicken from the US or similarly unwanted products (food or otherwise) enter the EU market.
If not what is wrong in the above reasoning?
Ireland, like the UK, isn't part of the Schengen zone.
Also, there technically are border controls (as in passport checks) today at ports (air and sea) between Great Britain (as in the island) and Ireland (as in the island), and between the British Isles (as in the UK and Ireland) and the Schengen zone.
Assuming that this reasoning is correct, why influential hard-Brexiteers don't campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?
Because Brexit itself is a hard enough sell as things are. Putting up a hard border forward to boot means throwing the Good Friday agreement -- a peace deal -- out the window. It's not a good idea to be campaigning on that.
this answer claims that (some?) hard-Brexiteers hope that Ireland would follow the UK and leave the EU as well, and that would solve the problem. This options seems very unlikely given that Ireland's economy relies on being part of the EU (let alone the growing anglophobia in Ireland), but is there any evidence to back this claim?
No, except perhaps in ERG and DUP wet dreams.
add a comment |
in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish border a potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK?
Yes. And if anything, this might prompt the UK to set up some hard borders on its side of the border, much like the EU is discussing border checks on its side for livestock and food, to make sure that no chlorinated chicken from the US or similarly unwanted products (food or otherwise) enter the EU market.
If not what is wrong in the above reasoning?
Ireland, like the UK, isn't part of the Schengen zone.
Also, there technically are border controls (as in passport checks) today at ports (air and sea) between Great Britain (as in the island) and Ireland (as in the island), and between the British Isles (as in the UK and Ireland) and the Schengen zone.
Assuming that this reasoning is correct, why influential hard-Brexiteers don't campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?
Because Brexit itself is a hard enough sell as things are. Putting up a hard border forward to boot means throwing the Good Friday agreement -- a peace deal -- out the window. It's not a good idea to be campaigning on that.
this answer claims that (some?) hard-Brexiteers hope that Ireland would follow the UK and leave the EU as well, and that would solve the problem. This options seems very unlikely given that Ireland's economy relies on being part of the EU (let alone the growing anglophobia in Ireland), but is there any evidence to back this claim?
No, except perhaps in ERG and DUP wet dreams.
in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish border a potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK?
Yes. And if anything, this might prompt the UK to set up some hard borders on its side of the border, much like the EU is discussing border checks on its side for livestock and food, to make sure that no chlorinated chicken from the US or similarly unwanted products (food or otherwise) enter the EU market.
If not what is wrong in the above reasoning?
Ireland, like the UK, isn't part of the Schengen zone.
Also, there technically are border controls (as in passport checks) today at ports (air and sea) between Great Britain (as in the island) and Ireland (as in the island), and between the British Isles (as in the UK and Ireland) and the Schengen zone.
Assuming that this reasoning is correct, why influential hard-Brexiteers don't campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?
Because Brexit itself is a hard enough sell as things are. Putting up a hard border forward to boot means throwing the Good Friday agreement -- a peace deal -- out the window. It's not a good idea to be campaigning on that.
this answer claims that (some?) hard-Brexiteers hope that Ireland would follow the UK and leave the EU as well, and that would solve the problem. This options seems very unlikely given that Ireland's economy relies on being part of the EU (let alone the growing anglophobia in Ireland), but is there any evidence to back this claim?
No, except perhaps in ERG and DUP wet dreams.
edited Apr 10 at 20:40
answered Apr 10 at 19:50
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
15.2k34170
15.2k34170
add a comment |
add a comment |
The hard Brexiteers don't really care about immigration. Immigration was just a tool they used to get what they really want: economic freedom to exploit the UK. Things like employment rights and financial regulations that derive from the EU limit get in the way of them making money.
The immigration angle was just something they used to get enough people to vote for brexit. Now it's a useful excuse for not honouring the pre-referendum proposals to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union.
4
I downvoted you for what appears to be mind reading. If you have evidence to back up your claims then I will remove the downvote. This isn't a conspiracy theory site.
– iain
Apr 11 at 12:58
1
@iain JRM quoted by the Express: BRUSSELS is planning to impose EU tax policies on the UK and its overseas territories after Britain leaves the bloc in March 2019 in a move branded a "punishment" by Jacob Rees-Mogg. Specifically, this seems to be about the Anti Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD).
– JJJ
2 days ago
1
@JJJ That doesn't support the claims made. Why do you think it does?
– iain
2 days ago
1
This answer seems to be just a conspiracy theory. I agree with some of the comments above mine - this answer has no place on this site unless it can be backed up with citations showing that Brexiteers' motivation is to "exploit the UK" so that they can "make money". In the absence of such evidence, I assert that this answer's premise is false (disclaimer: I am Remainer, but I still think the claims in this answer are ridiculous).
– JBentley
yesterday
add a comment |
The hard Brexiteers don't really care about immigration. Immigration was just a tool they used to get what they really want: economic freedom to exploit the UK. Things like employment rights and financial regulations that derive from the EU limit get in the way of them making money.
The immigration angle was just something they used to get enough people to vote for brexit. Now it's a useful excuse for not honouring the pre-referendum proposals to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union.
4
I downvoted you for what appears to be mind reading. If you have evidence to back up your claims then I will remove the downvote. This isn't a conspiracy theory site.
– iain
Apr 11 at 12:58
1
@iain JRM quoted by the Express: BRUSSELS is planning to impose EU tax policies on the UK and its overseas territories after Britain leaves the bloc in March 2019 in a move branded a "punishment" by Jacob Rees-Mogg. Specifically, this seems to be about the Anti Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD).
– JJJ
2 days ago
1
@JJJ That doesn't support the claims made. Why do you think it does?
– iain
2 days ago
1
This answer seems to be just a conspiracy theory. I agree with some of the comments above mine - this answer has no place on this site unless it can be backed up with citations showing that Brexiteers' motivation is to "exploit the UK" so that they can "make money". In the absence of such evidence, I assert that this answer's premise is false (disclaimer: I am Remainer, but I still think the claims in this answer are ridiculous).
– JBentley
yesterday
add a comment |
The hard Brexiteers don't really care about immigration. Immigration was just a tool they used to get what they really want: economic freedom to exploit the UK. Things like employment rights and financial regulations that derive from the EU limit get in the way of them making money.
The immigration angle was just something they used to get enough people to vote for brexit. Now it's a useful excuse for not honouring the pre-referendum proposals to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union.
The hard Brexiteers don't really care about immigration. Immigration was just a tool they used to get what they really want: economic freedom to exploit the UK. Things like employment rights and financial regulations that derive from the EU limit get in the way of them making money.
The immigration angle was just something they used to get enough people to vote for brexit. Now it's a useful excuse for not honouring the pre-referendum proposals to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union.
edited 2 days ago
Philipp♦
41.6k15123149
41.6k15123149
answered Apr 11 at 8:04
useruser
11.2k32644
11.2k32644
4
I downvoted you for what appears to be mind reading. If you have evidence to back up your claims then I will remove the downvote. This isn't a conspiracy theory site.
– iain
Apr 11 at 12:58
1
@iain JRM quoted by the Express: BRUSSELS is planning to impose EU tax policies on the UK and its overseas territories after Britain leaves the bloc in March 2019 in a move branded a "punishment" by Jacob Rees-Mogg. Specifically, this seems to be about the Anti Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD).
– JJJ
2 days ago
1
@JJJ That doesn't support the claims made. Why do you think it does?
– iain
2 days ago
1
This answer seems to be just a conspiracy theory. I agree with some of the comments above mine - this answer has no place on this site unless it can be backed up with citations showing that Brexiteers' motivation is to "exploit the UK" so that they can "make money". In the absence of such evidence, I assert that this answer's premise is false (disclaimer: I am Remainer, but I still think the claims in this answer are ridiculous).
– JBentley
yesterday
add a comment |
4
I downvoted you for what appears to be mind reading. If you have evidence to back up your claims then I will remove the downvote. This isn't a conspiracy theory site.
– iain
Apr 11 at 12:58
1
@iain JRM quoted by the Express: BRUSSELS is planning to impose EU tax policies on the UK and its overseas territories after Britain leaves the bloc in March 2019 in a move branded a "punishment" by Jacob Rees-Mogg. Specifically, this seems to be about the Anti Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD).
– JJJ
2 days ago
1
@JJJ That doesn't support the claims made. Why do you think it does?
– iain
2 days ago
1
This answer seems to be just a conspiracy theory. I agree with some of the comments above mine - this answer has no place on this site unless it can be backed up with citations showing that Brexiteers' motivation is to "exploit the UK" so that they can "make money". In the absence of such evidence, I assert that this answer's premise is false (disclaimer: I am Remainer, but I still think the claims in this answer are ridiculous).
– JBentley
yesterday
4
4
I downvoted you for what appears to be mind reading. If you have evidence to back up your claims then I will remove the downvote. This isn't a conspiracy theory site.
– iain
Apr 11 at 12:58
I downvoted you for what appears to be mind reading. If you have evidence to back up your claims then I will remove the downvote. This isn't a conspiracy theory site.
– iain
Apr 11 at 12:58
1
1
@iain JRM quoted by the Express: BRUSSELS is planning to impose EU tax policies on the UK and its overseas territories after Britain leaves the bloc in March 2019 in a move branded a "punishment" by Jacob Rees-Mogg. Specifically, this seems to be about the Anti Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD).
– JJJ
2 days ago
@iain JRM quoted by the Express: BRUSSELS is planning to impose EU tax policies on the UK and its overseas territories after Britain leaves the bloc in March 2019 in a move branded a "punishment" by Jacob Rees-Mogg. Specifically, this seems to be about the Anti Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD).
– JJJ
2 days ago
1
1
@JJJ That doesn't support the claims made. Why do you think it does?
– iain
2 days ago
@JJJ That doesn't support the claims made. Why do you think it does?
– iain
2 days ago
1
1
This answer seems to be just a conspiracy theory. I agree with some of the comments above mine - this answer has no place on this site unless it can be backed up with citations showing that Brexiteers' motivation is to "exploit the UK" so that they can "make money". In the absence of such evidence, I assert that this answer's premise is false (disclaimer: I am Remainer, but I still think the claims in this answer are ridiculous).
– JBentley
yesterday
This answer seems to be just a conspiracy theory. I agree with some of the comments above mine - this answer has no place on this site unless it can be backed up with citations showing that Brexiteers' motivation is to "exploit the UK" so that they can "make money". In the absence of such evidence, I assert that this answer's premise is false (disclaimer: I am Remainer, but I still think the claims in this answer are ridiculous).
– JBentley
yesterday
add a comment |
Brexiteers require a deal to be formulated that will gain enough support placating the DUP is an important part of this as they are unlikely to receive much support form Labour or the remain supporters in parliament needed to get a majority. It's worth remembering the hard brexiteers primarily want brexit they are simply OK or happy with the UK leaving on harsher terms as long as brexit is delivered.
The issue of the Irish border is perhaps one of the most important issues for any brexit deal as it it isn't a question about some benefit that might be received at some point in the future but something that handled poorly could lead to civil disturbances in Ireland that might even result in incidents in other areas of the UK and potentially island ceding from the UK, this would be a major issue for the government and the conservative party (if they were seen as responsible)
The issues with the Irish border are also a concern for the ROI who would be unlikely to agree to a deal with the UK that doesn't resolve the border concerns in a way that would allow some movement between ROI and Northern Island.
As well as the option of having a soft border into the UK through Northern Ireland there are a number of other options such as having some form of a border in the Irish sea between the Northern Island the rest of the UK. Which can be resolved at some later point (after all brexit is a long game that no-one really expects to benefit from any time soon) and this can be changed later when the support of the DUP is not so important and as an internal matter that doesn't require the EU to be involved . Equally a soft border is an issue for the EU as well and thus brexiteers would take make the argument that as a matter of mutual concern than some kind of resolution would be possible.
First question: in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish border a potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK? If not what is wrong in the above reasoning?
As you say a hard border is a concert for immigration but there options available down the line that might help reduce the impact of such a border on the rest of the UK.
Second question: assuming that this reasoning is correct, why influential hard-Brexiteers don't campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?
Brexiteers are more concerned with achieving brexit than this specific issue especially as there are options that could protect the rest of the UK from the immigration whilst still avoiding civil unrest. They also require support form the DUP for whatever deal can be made.
add a comment |
Brexiteers require a deal to be formulated that will gain enough support placating the DUP is an important part of this as they are unlikely to receive much support form Labour or the remain supporters in parliament needed to get a majority. It's worth remembering the hard brexiteers primarily want brexit they are simply OK or happy with the UK leaving on harsher terms as long as brexit is delivered.
The issue of the Irish border is perhaps one of the most important issues for any brexit deal as it it isn't a question about some benefit that might be received at some point in the future but something that handled poorly could lead to civil disturbances in Ireland that might even result in incidents in other areas of the UK and potentially island ceding from the UK, this would be a major issue for the government and the conservative party (if they were seen as responsible)
The issues with the Irish border are also a concern for the ROI who would be unlikely to agree to a deal with the UK that doesn't resolve the border concerns in a way that would allow some movement between ROI and Northern Island.
As well as the option of having a soft border into the UK through Northern Ireland there are a number of other options such as having some form of a border in the Irish sea between the Northern Island the rest of the UK. Which can be resolved at some later point (after all brexit is a long game that no-one really expects to benefit from any time soon) and this can be changed later when the support of the DUP is not so important and as an internal matter that doesn't require the EU to be involved . Equally a soft border is an issue for the EU as well and thus brexiteers would take make the argument that as a matter of mutual concern than some kind of resolution would be possible.
First question: in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish border a potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK? If not what is wrong in the above reasoning?
As you say a hard border is a concert for immigration but there options available down the line that might help reduce the impact of such a border on the rest of the UK.
Second question: assuming that this reasoning is correct, why influential hard-Brexiteers don't campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?
Brexiteers are more concerned with achieving brexit than this specific issue especially as there are options that could protect the rest of the UK from the immigration whilst still avoiding civil unrest. They also require support form the DUP for whatever deal can be made.
add a comment |
Brexiteers require a deal to be formulated that will gain enough support placating the DUP is an important part of this as they are unlikely to receive much support form Labour or the remain supporters in parliament needed to get a majority. It's worth remembering the hard brexiteers primarily want brexit they are simply OK or happy with the UK leaving on harsher terms as long as brexit is delivered.
The issue of the Irish border is perhaps one of the most important issues for any brexit deal as it it isn't a question about some benefit that might be received at some point in the future but something that handled poorly could lead to civil disturbances in Ireland that might even result in incidents in other areas of the UK and potentially island ceding from the UK, this would be a major issue for the government and the conservative party (if they were seen as responsible)
The issues with the Irish border are also a concern for the ROI who would be unlikely to agree to a deal with the UK that doesn't resolve the border concerns in a way that would allow some movement between ROI and Northern Island.
As well as the option of having a soft border into the UK through Northern Ireland there are a number of other options such as having some form of a border in the Irish sea between the Northern Island the rest of the UK. Which can be resolved at some later point (after all brexit is a long game that no-one really expects to benefit from any time soon) and this can be changed later when the support of the DUP is not so important and as an internal matter that doesn't require the EU to be involved . Equally a soft border is an issue for the EU as well and thus brexiteers would take make the argument that as a matter of mutual concern than some kind of resolution would be possible.
First question: in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish border a potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK? If not what is wrong in the above reasoning?
As you say a hard border is a concert for immigration but there options available down the line that might help reduce the impact of such a border on the rest of the UK.
Second question: assuming that this reasoning is correct, why influential hard-Brexiteers don't campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?
Brexiteers are more concerned with achieving brexit than this specific issue especially as there are options that could protect the rest of the UK from the immigration whilst still avoiding civil unrest. They also require support form the DUP for whatever deal can be made.
Brexiteers require a deal to be formulated that will gain enough support placating the DUP is an important part of this as they are unlikely to receive much support form Labour or the remain supporters in parliament needed to get a majority. It's worth remembering the hard brexiteers primarily want brexit they are simply OK or happy with the UK leaving on harsher terms as long as brexit is delivered.
The issue of the Irish border is perhaps one of the most important issues for any brexit deal as it it isn't a question about some benefit that might be received at some point in the future but something that handled poorly could lead to civil disturbances in Ireland that might even result in incidents in other areas of the UK and potentially island ceding from the UK, this would be a major issue for the government and the conservative party (if they were seen as responsible)
The issues with the Irish border are also a concern for the ROI who would be unlikely to agree to a deal with the UK that doesn't resolve the border concerns in a way that would allow some movement between ROI and Northern Island.
As well as the option of having a soft border into the UK through Northern Ireland there are a number of other options such as having some form of a border in the Irish sea between the Northern Island the rest of the UK. Which can be resolved at some later point (after all brexit is a long game that no-one really expects to benefit from any time soon) and this can be changed later when the support of the DUP is not so important and as an internal matter that doesn't require the EU to be involved . Equally a soft border is an issue for the EU as well and thus brexiteers would take make the argument that as a matter of mutual concern than some kind of resolution would be possible.
First question: in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish border a potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK? If not what is wrong in the above reasoning?
As you say a hard border is a concert for immigration but there options available down the line that might help reduce the impact of such a border on the rest of the UK.
Second question: assuming that this reasoning is correct, why influential hard-Brexiteers don't campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?
Brexiteers are more concerned with achieving brexit than this specific issue especially as there are options that could protect the rest of the UK from the immigration whilst still avoiding civil unrest. They also require support form the DUP for whatever deal can be made.
edited Apr 11 at 15:05
matt freake
1033
1033
answered Apr 10 at 20:27
Steve SmithSteve Smith
1,996316
1,996316
add a comment |
add a comment |
for hard Brexiteers, taking back control of the UK borders to limit immigration is a major outcome of Brexit
For some of them, maybe. But certainly not all; many of them are globalist libertarians with no desire whatsoever to reduce immigration.
A few points:
"Global Britain" and "go global" were key Leave slogans.- Only one-third of Leave voters cited immigration as their main motive in Lord Ashcroft's exit poll.
- Many key Leave supporters are pro-immigration:
- cabinet member and one-time PM contender Michael Gove speaks approvingly of Britain's "liberal approach" to immigration
- other previous PM candidate Boris Johnson has called for an "open approach", "clashed" with Remainer Theresa May due to his defence of immigrant rights, and called on the government to make a "liberal" case for immigration.
- yet another PM contender, Daniel Hannan, the Secretary-General of the biggest EU-skeptical EU conservative party, is a pro-immigration liberal who has written multiple articles denouncing Remainer claims that Brexit was motivated by a desire to restrict immigration. (One example.)
The narrative that the Brexit vote was motivated by a desire to reduce immigration is common on the pro-Remain Left, but for actual pro-Leave politicians it's often either a secondary objective or something they actively oppose. There's no need to explain why these people are taking positions that go against their values, because they don't go against their values in the first place.
Thank you for your answer. I was assuming that limiting immigration was a consensual objective for Brexiteers indeed, so your answer gives me a better understanding of the Brexit political landscape. In my defense, the Brexit leave campaign was quite misleading on the topic.
– Erwan
Apr 12 at 0:11
+1 although I disagree with the final sentence - "there's no need to explain why these people are taking positions that go against their values, because they don't go against their values". You seem to be forgetting your own point that this only applies to "some of them". There are certainly some anti-immigration Brexiteers (just as there are certainly anti-immigration Remainers), and the question remains valid for those (and thus a complete answer should address the point).
– JBentley
yesterday
add a comment |
for hard Brexiteers, taking back control of the UK borders to limit immigration is a major outcome of Brexit
For some of them, maybe. But certainly not all; many of them are globalist libertarians with no desire whatsoever to reduce immigration.
A few points:
"Global Britain" and "go global" were key Leave slogans.- Only one-third of Leave voters cited immigration as their main motive in Lord Ashcroft's exit poll.
- Many key Leave supporters are pro-immigration:
- cabinet member and one-time PM contender Michael Gove speaks approvingly of Britain's "liberal approach" to immigration
- other previous PM candidate Boris Johnson has called for an "open approach", "clashed" with Remainer Theresa May due to his defence of immigrant rights, and called on the government to make a "liberal" case for immigration.
- yet another PM contender, Daniel Hannan, the Secretary-General of the biggest EU-skeptical EU conservative party, is a pro-immigration liberal who has written multiple articles denouncing Remainer claims that Brexit was motivated by a desire to restrict immigration. (One example.)
The narrative that the Brexit vote was motivated by a desire to reduce immigration is common on the pro-Remain Left, but for actual pro-Leave politicians it's often either a secondary objective or something they actively oppose. There's no need to explain why these people are taking positions that go against their values, because they don't go against their values in the first place.
Thank you for your answer. I was assuming that limiting immigration was a consensual objective for Brexiteers indeed, so your answer gives me a better understanding of the Brexit political landscape. In my defense, the Brexit leave campaign was quite misleading on the topic.
– Erwan
Apr 12 at 0:11
+1 although I disagree with the final sentence - "there's no need to explain why these people are taking positions that go against their values, because they don't go against their values". You seem to be forgetting your own point that this only applies to "some of them". There are certainly some anti-immigration Brexiteers (just as there are certainly anti-immigration Remainers), and the question remains valid for those (and thus a complete answer should address the point).
– JBentley
yesterday
add a comment |
for hard Brexiteers, taking back control of the UK borders to limit immigration is a major outcome of Brexit
For some of them, maybe. But certainly not all; many of them are globalist libertarians with no desire whatsoever to reduce immigration.
A few points:
"Global Britain" and "go global" were key Leave slogans.- Only one-third of Leave voters cited immigration as their main motive in Lord Ashcroft's exit poll.
- Many key Leave supporters are pro-immigration:
- cabinet member and one-time PM contender Michael Gove speaks approvingly of Britain's "liberal approach" to immigration
- other previous PM candidate Boris Johnson has called for an "open approach", "clashed" with Remainer Theresa May due to his defence of immigrant rights, and called on the government to make a "liberal" case for immigration.
- yet another PM contender, Daniel Hannan, the Secretary-General of the biggest EU-skeptical EU conservative party, is a pro-immigration liberal who has written multiple articles denouncing Remainer claims that Brexit was motivated by a desire to restrict immigration. (One example.)
The narrative that the Brexit vote was motivated by a desire to reduce immigration is common on the pro-Remain Left, but for actual pro-Leave politicians it's often either a secondary objective or something they actively oppose. There's no need to explain why these people are taking positions that go against their values, because they don't go against their values in the first place.
for hard Brexiteers, taking back control of the UK borders to limit immigration is a major outcome of Brexit
For some of them, maybe. But certainly not all; many of them are globalist libertarians with no desire whatsoever to reduce immigration.
A few points:
"Global Britain" and "go global" were key Leave slogans.- Only one-third of Leave voters cited immigration as their main motive in Lord Ashcroft's exit poll.
- Many key Leave supporters are pro-immigration:
- cabinet member and one-time PM contender Michael Gove speaks approvingly of Britain's "liberal approach" to immigration
- other previous PM candidate Boris Johnson has called for an "open approach", "clashed" with Remainer Theresa May due to his defence of immigrant rights, and called on the government to make a "liberal" case for immigration.
- yet another PM contender, Daniel Hannan, the Secretary-General of the biggest EU-skeptical EU conservative party, is a pro-immigration liberal who has written multiple articles denouncing Remainer claims that Brexit was motivated by a desire to restrict immigration. (One example.)
The narrative that the Brexit vote was motivated by a desire to reduce immigration is common on the pro-Remain Left, but for actual pro-Leave politicians it's often either a secondary objective or something they actively oppose. There's no need to explain why these people are taking positions that go against their values, because they don't go against their values in the first place.
edited Apr 12 at 0:20
answered Apr 11 at 19:02
Mark AmeryMark Amery
1568
1568
Thank you for your answer. I was assuming that limiting immigration was a consensual objective for Brexiteers indeed, so your answer gives me a better understanding of the Brexit political landscape. In my defense, the Brexit leave campaign was quite misleading on the topic.
– Erwan
Apr 12 at 0:11
+1 although I disagree with the final sentence - "there's no need to explain why these people are taking positions that go against their values, because they don't go against their values". You seem to be forgetting your own point that this only applies to "some of them". There are certainly some anti-immigration Brexiteers (just as there are certainly anti-immigration Remainers), and the question remains valid for those (and thus a complete answer should address the point).
– JBentley
yesterday
add a comment |
Thank you for your answer. I was assuming that limiting immigration was a consensual objective for Brexiteers indeed, so your answer gives me a better understanding of the Brexit political landscape. In my defense, the Brexit leave campaign was quite misleading on the topic.
– Erwan
Apr 12 at 0:11
+1 although I disagree with the final sentence - "there's no need to explain why these people are taking positions that go against their values, because they don't go against their values". You seem to be forgetting your own point that this only applies to "some of them". There are certainly some anti-immigration Brexiteers (just as there are certainly anti-immigration Remainers), and the question remains valid for those (and thus a complete answer should address the point).
– JBentley
yesterday
Thank you for your answer. I was assuming that limiting immigration was a consensual objective for Brexiteers indeed, so your answer gives me a better understanding of the Brexit political landscape. In my defense, the Brexit leave campaign was quite misleading on the topic.
– Erwan
Apr 12 at 0:11
Thank you for your answer. I was assuming that limiting immigration was a consensual objective for Brexiteers indeed, so your answer gives me a better understanding of the Brexit political landscape. In my defense, the Brexit leave campaign was quite misleading on the topic.
– Erwan
Apr 12 at 0:11
+1 although I disagree with the final sentence - "there's no need to explain why these people are taking positions that go against their values, because they don't go against their values". You seem to be forgetting your own point that this only applies to "some of them". There are certainly some anti-immigration Brexiteers (just as there are certainly anti-immigration Remainers), and the question remains valid for those (and thus a complete answer should address the point).
– JBentley
yesterday
+1 although I disagree with the final sentence - "there's no need to explain why these people are taking positions that go against their values, because they don't go against their values". You seem to be forgetting your own point that this only applies to "some of them". There are certainly some anti-immigration Brexiteers (just as there are certainly anti-immigration Remainers), and the question remains valid for those (and thus a complete answer should address the point).
– JBentley
yesterday
add a comment |
First question: in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish
border a potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK? If not
what is wrong in the above reasoning?
Second question: assuming that this reasoning is correct, why
influential hard-Brexiteers don't campaign for a hard Irish border in
order to actually control immigration?
When you stop all traffic at a hard border to check for papers, you slow down commerce. In the age of just-in-time delivery to factories, hour-long waiting periods on the border hurt the economy. The Irish and Northern-Irish had an open border for over 20 years, and they pretty much like that open border.
So, apart from issues regarding terror, the Troubles and the Good Friday Agreement, a hard Irish-Northern Ireland border would hurt the economy.
My guess is, if you find some hard-Brexiteer who makes the case for a hard border in order to tackle immigration, it's unlikely that this one would be from Northern Ireland.
If the UK, at some point in time, finds that the soft border with Ireland creates an immigration loophole, they can always create checks for the connections between the islands of Ireland and Britain, i.e. check everthing that crosses the Irish Channel (flights and ferries). Right now, this is considered as breaking up the UK by many Brexiteers, thus such an additional channel border likely won't make it into any official Brexit plans. Yet, politicians can be quite pragmatic.
1
"If the UK, at some point in time, finds that the soft border with Ireland creates an immigration loophole": anyone in the UK who's thought seriously about this recognizes that the border already creates an immigration loophole, as it has since 1923. The economic angle is indeed important, though, so +1.
– phoog
Apr 11 at 14:15
add a comment |
First question: in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish
border a potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK? If not
what is wrong in the above reasoning?
Second question: assuming that this reasoning is correct, why
influential hard-Brexiteers don't campaign for a hard Irish border in
order to actually control immigration?
When you stop all traffic at a hard border to check for papers, you slow down commerce. In the age of just-in-time delivery to factories, hour-long waiting periods on the border hurt the economy. The Irish and Northern-Irish had an open border for over 20 years, and they pretty much like that open border.
So, apart from issues regarding terror, the Troubles and the Good Friday Agreement, a hard Irish-Northern Ireland border would hurt the economy.
My guess is, if you find some hard-Brexiteer who makes the case for a hard border in order to tackle immigration, it's unlikely that this one would be from Northern Ireland.
If the UK, at some point in time, finds that the soft border with Ireland creates an immigration loophole, they can always create checks for the connections between the islands of Ireland and Britain, i.e. check everthing that crosses the Irish Channel (flights and ferries). Right now, this is considered as breaking up the UK by many Brexiteers, thus such an additional channel border likely won't make it into any official Brexit plans. Yet, politicians can be quite pragmatic.
1
"If the UK, at some point in time, finds that the soft border with Ireland creates an immigration loophole": anyone in the UK who's thought seriously about this recognizes that the border already creates an immigration loophole, as it has since 1923. The economic angle is indeed important, though, so +1.
– phoog
Apr 11 at 14:15
add a comment |
First question: in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish
border a potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK? If not
what is wrong in the above reasoning?
Second question: assuming that this reasoning is correct, why
influential hard-Brexiteers don't campaign for a hard Irish border in
order to actually control immigration?
When you stop all traffic at a hard border to check for papers, you slow down commerce. In the age of just-in-time delivery to factories, hour-long waiting periods on the border hurt the economy. The Irish and Northern-Irish had an open border for over 20 years, and they pretty much like that open border.
So, apart from issues regarding terror, the Troubles and the Good Friday Agreement, a hard Irish-Northern Ireland border would hurt the economy.
My guess is, if you find some hard-Brexiteer who makes the case for a hard border in order to tackle immigration, it's unlikely that this one would be from Northern Ireland.
If the UK, at some point in time, finds that the soft border with Ireland creates an immigration loophole, they can always create checks for the connections between the islands of Ireland and Britain, i.e. check everthing that crosses the Irish Channel (flights and ferries). Right now, this is considered as breaking up the UK by many Brexiteers, thus such an additional channel border likely won't make it into any official Brexit plans. Yet, politicians can be quite pragmatic.
First question: in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish
border a potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK? If not
what is wrong in the above reasoning?
Second question: assuming that this reasoning is correct, why
influential hard-Brexiteers don't campaign for a hard Irish border in
order to actually control immigration?
When you stop all traffic at a hard border to check for papers, you slow down commerce. In the age of just-in-time delivery to factories, hour-long waiting periods on the border hurt the economy. The Irish and Northern-Irish had an open border for over 20 years, and they pretty much like that open border.
So, apart from issues regarding terror, the Troubles and the Good Friday Agreement, a hard Irish-Northern Ireland border would hurt the economy.
My guess is, if you find some hard-Brexiteer who makes the case for a hard border in order to tackle immigration, it's unlikely that this one would be from Northern Ireland.
If the UK, at some point in time, finds that the soft border with Ireland creates an immigration loophole, they can always create checks for the connections between the islands of Ireland and Britain, i.e. check everthing that crosses the Irish Channel (flights and ferries). Right now, this is considered as breaking up the UK by many Brexiteers, thus such an additional channel border likely won't make it into any official Brexit plans. Yet, politicians can be quite pragmatic.
answered Apr 11 at 7:44
Dohn JoeDohn Joe
1,742215
1,742215
1
"If the UK, at some point in time, finds that the soft border with Ireland creates an immigration loophole": anyone in the UK who's thought seriously about this recognizes that the border already creates an immigration loophole, as it has since 1923. The economic angle is indeed important, though, so +1.
– phoog
Apr 11 at 14:15
add a comment |
1
"If the UK, at some point in time, finds that the soft border with Ireland creates an immigration loophole": anyone in the UK who's thought seriously about this recognizes that the border already creates an immigration loophole, as it has since 1923. The economic angle is indeed important, though, so +1.
– phoog
Apr 11 at 14:15
1
1
"If the UK, at some point in time, finds that the soft border with Ireland creates an immigration loophole": anyone in the UK who's thought seriously about this recognizes that the border already creates an immigration loophole, as it has since 1923. The economic angle is indeed important, though, so +1.
– phoog
Apr 11 at 14:15
"If the UK, at some point in time, finds that the soft border with Ireland creates an immigration loophole": anyone in the UK who's thought seriously about this recognizes that the border already creates an immigration loophole, as it has since 1923. The economic angle is indeed important, though, so +1.
– phoog
Apr 11 at 14:15
add a comment |
in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish border a
potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK?
Technically yes, but in reality no. Remember that the UK and the Republic of Ireland will remain in the same immigration zone after Brexit (Common Travel Area, or CTA). In the case of illegal immigration, that immigration will remain illegal after a Hard Brexit. The vast majority of illegal immigration is made up of people trying to cross the channel illegally, either by sneaking into vehicles that are crossing the channel legally, or (more recently) by using dinghies and hoping for the best. Leaving the EU won't change geography, it won't change the CTA, it won't change the fact that vehicles will legally cross the channel, and crucially it doesn't change the desperation of those who are trying to cross. Because the UK already has an opt out I don't see how leaving the EU will increase the thoroughness of the checks performed on incoming lorries*, it is a question of time/space/resources that determines how many vehicles are checked.
Therefore those who seek to enter the UK illegally after a Hard Brexit will still choose to cross from Calais to Dover/Folkestone rather than by first of all going on a much longer ferry crossing to the Republic of Ireland and then exploiting the soft border. It's the fact that the Republic of Ireland is still in the CTA and geography that makes the difference.
Second question: assuming that this reasoning is correct, why don't influential hard Brexiteers campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?
Because they know that a hard border will kill the Northern Irish economy, which in turn will affect the votes for the DUP (and their supporters in the ERG). In a worst-case scenario the economic impact could even make a Border Poll** inevitable, followed by Northern Ireland rejoining the EU by becoming part of the Republic of Ireland. While this would solve the problem of the Irish Border and the Backstop, etc, it is an anathema for many of those who support a Hard Brexit because they are also staunch unionists.
*It may even decrease it. If all vehicles have to be checked due to WTO obligations, they will have less time to check any particular vehicle.
**A Border Poll is the specific name given to a referendum on the future of Northern Ireland within the UK or as a part of the Republic of Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement obliges the UK government to hold a Border Poll in certain circumstances. There is evidence that the Brexit 'journey' has increased support for a Border Poll.
New contributor
add a comment |
in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish border a
potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK?
Technically yes, but in reality no. Remember that the UK and the Republic of Ireland will remain in the same immigration zone after Brexit (Common Travel Area, or CTA). In the case of illegal immigration, that immigration will remain illegal after a Hard Brexit. The vast majority of illegal immigration is made up of people trying to cross the channel illegally, either by sneaking into vehicles that are crossing the channel legally, or (more recently) by using dinghies and hoping for the best. Leaving the EU won't change geography, it won't change the CTA, it won't change the fact that vehicles will legally cross the channel, and crucially it doesn't change the desperation of those who are trying to cross. Because the UK already has an opt out I don't see how leaving the EU will increase the thoroughness of the checks performed on incoming lorries*, it is a question of time/space/resources that determines how many vehicles are checked.
Therefore those who seek to enter the UK illegally after a Hard Brexit will still choose to cross from Calais to Dover/Folkestone rather than by first of all going on a much longer ferry crossing to the Republic of Ireland and then exploiting the soft border. It's the fact that the Republic of Ireland is still in the CTA and geography that makes the difference.
Second question: assuming that this reasoning is correct, why don't influential hard Brexiteers campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?
Because they know that a hard border will kill the Northern Irish economy, which in turn will affect the votes for the DUP (and their supporters in the ERG). In a worst-case scenario the economic impact could even make a Border Poll** inevitable, followed by Northern Ireland rejoining the EU by becoming part of the Republic of Ireland. While this would solve the problem of the Irish Border and the Backstop, etc, it is an anathema for many of those who support a Hard Brexit because they are also staunch unionists.
*It may even decrease it. If all vehicles have to be checked due to WTO obligations, they will have less time to check any particular vehicle.
**A Border Poll is the specific name given to a referendum on the future of Northern Ireland within the UK or as a part of the Republic of Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement obliges the UK government to hold a Border Poll in certain circumstances. There is evidence that the Brexit 'journey' has increased support for a Border Poll.
New contributor
add a comment |
in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish border a
potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK?
Technically yes, but in reality no. Remember that the UK and the Republic of Ireland will remain in the same immigration zone after Brexit (Common Travel Area, or CTA). In the case of illegal immigration, that immigration will remain illegal after a Hard Brexit. The vast majority of illegal immigration is made up of people trying to cross the channel illegally, either by sneaking into vehicles that are crossing the channel legally, or (more recently) by using dinghies and hoping for the best. Leaving the EU won't change geography, it won't change the CTA, it won't change the fact that vehicles will legally cross the channel, and crucially it doesn't change the desperation of those who are trying to cross. Because the UK already has an opt out I don't see how leaving the EU will increase the thoroughness of the checks performed on incoming lorries*, it is a question of time/space/resources that determines how many vehicles are checked.
Therefore those who seek to enter the UK illegally after a Hard Brexit will still choose to cross from Calais to Dover/Folkestone rather than by first of all going on a much longer ferry crossing to the Republic of Ireland and then exploiting the soft border. It's the fact that the Republic of Ireland is still in the CTA and geography that makes the difference.
Second question: assuming that this reasoning is correct, why don't influential hard Brexiteers campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?
Because they know that a hard border will kill the Northern Irish economy, which in turn will affect the votes for the DUP (and their supporters in the ERG). In a worst-case scenario the economic impact could even make a Border Poll** inevitable, followed by Northern Ireland rejoining the EU by becoming part of the Republic of Ireland. While this would solve the problem of the Irish Border and the Backstop, etc, it is an anathema for many of those who support a Hard Brexit because they are also staunch unionists.
*It may even decrease it. If all vehicles have to be checked due to WTO obligations, they will have less time to check any particular vehicle.
**A Border Poll is the specific name given to a referendum on the future of Northern Ireland within the UK or as a part of the Republic of Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement obliges the UK government to hold a Border Poll in certain circumstances. There is evidence that the Brexit 'journey' has increased support for a Border Poll.
New contributor
in the hypothesis of a hard Brexit, isn't a soft Irish border a
potential backdoor for illegal immigration to the UK?
Technically yes, but in reality no. Remember that the UK and the Republic of Ireland will remain in the same immigration zone after Brexit (Common Travel Area, or CTA). In the case of illegal immigration, that immigration will remain illegal after a Hard Brexit. The vast majority of illegal immigration is made up of people trying to cross the channel illegally, either by sneaking into vehicles that are crossing the channel legally, or (more recently) by using dinghies and hoping for the best. Leaving the EU won't change geography, it won't change the CTA, it won't change the fact that vehicles will legally cross the channel, and crucially it doesn't change the desperation of those who are trying to cross. Because the UK already has an opt out I don't see how leaving the EU will increase the thoroughness of the checks performed on incoming lorries*, it is a question of time/space/resources that determines how many vehicles are checked.
Therefore those who seek to enter the UK illegally after a Hard Brexit will still choose to cross from Calais to Dover/Folkestone rather than by first of all going on a much longer ferry crossing to the Republic of Ireland and then exploiting the soft border. It's the fact that the Republic of Ireland is still in the CTA and geography that makes the difference.
Second question: assuming that this reasoning is correct, why don't influential hard Brexiteers campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?
Because they know that a hard border will kill the Northern Irish economy, which in turn will affect the votes for the DUP (and their supporters in the ERG). In a worst-case scenario the economic impact could even make a Border Poll** inevitable, followed by Northern Ireland rejoining the EU by becoming part of the Republic of Ireland. While this would solve the problem of the Irish Border and the Backstop, etc, it is an anathema for many of those who support a Hard Brexit because they are also staunch unionists.
*It may even decrease it. If all vehicles have to be checked due to WTO obligations, they will have less time to check any particular vehicle.
**A Border Poll is the specific name given to a referendum on the future of Northern Ireland within the UK or as a part of the Republic of Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement obliges the UK government to hold a Border Poll in certain circumstances. There is evidence that the Brexit 'journey' has increased support for a Border Poll.
New contributor
edited 2 days ago
New contributor
answered 2 days ago
RichRich
1113
1113
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
Hard Brexiteers' supporters aren't as concerned with migration from Ireland as they are with (illegal) migration from mainland Europe (and in turn from the Middle East).
Second question: assuming that this reasoning is correct, why don't influential hard Brexiteers campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?
Because the Brexiteers aren't particularly afraid of Irish people. Most other answers correctly point out technicalities regarding the border and immigration is mentioned by almost all of them. What they have not yet pointed out is what immigration they are afraid of / worried about.
Indeed, if we look at research, we find the following, from the abstract of a paper titled Is racial prejudice declining in Britain?:
Little evidence is found for the third hypothesis: British reactions towards black and Asian minorities are broadly similar suggesting racial differences may still be the main factor prompting white hostility to British minorities.
Now, as you might guess, Ireland isn't associated with non-white races at all. France on the other hand, is. For this I will provide two pieces of evidence: firstly Nigel Farage's image on a truck associating nonwhite refugees with the EU in his Brexit campaign (first picture) and secondly the Calais jungle (second picture, showing how it's been reported). Indeed, British seem to be more concerned about the Calais jungle than the French (even though Calais is in France), please consider the third picture showing the result from a YouGov poll.
(Image: Philip Toscano/PA)
(Image: northumbrianreflections)
What a depressingly de-humanising picture that one of Nigel Farage is. It's sad that we live in a world where it's considered ok for a politician to stand in front of a photo of people in desperate conditions, and use it to drum up hate in order to support their political agenda.
– JBentley
yesterday
add a comment |
Hard Brexiteers' supporters aren't as concerned with migration from Ireland as they are with (illegal) migration from mainland Europe (and in turn from the Middle East).
Second question: assuming that this reasoning is correct, why don't influential hard Brexiteers campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?
Because the Brexiteers aren't particularly afraid of Irish people. Most other answers correctly point out technicalities regarding the border and immigration is mentioned by almost all of them. What they have not yet pointed out is what immigration they are afraid of / worried about.
Indeed, if we look at research, we find the following, from the abstract of a paper titled Is racial prejudice declining in Britain?:
Little evidence is found for the third hypothesis: British reactions towards black and Asian minorities are broadly similar suggesting racial differences may still be the main factor prompting white hostility to British minorities.
Now, as you might guess, Ireland isn't associated with non-white races at all. France on the other hand, is. For this I will provide two pieces of evidence: firstly Nigel Farage's image on a truck associating nonwhite refugees with the EU in his Brexit campaign (first picture) and secondly the Calais jungle (second picture, showing how it's been reported). Indeed, British seem to be more concerned about the Calais jungle than the French (even though Calais is in France), please consider the third picture showing the result from a YouGov poll.
(Image: Philip Toscano/PA)
(Image: northumbrianreflections)
What a depressingly de-humanising picture that one of Nigel Farage is. It's sad that we live in a world where it's considered ok for a politician to stand in front of a photo of people in desperate conditions, and use it to drum up hate in order to support their political agenda.
– JBentley
yesterday
add a comment |
Hard Brexiteers' supporters aren't as concerned with migration from Ireland as they are with (illegal) migration from mainland Europe (and in turn from the Middle East).
Second question: assuming that this reasoning is correct, why don't influential hard Brexiteers campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?
Because the Brexiteers aren't particularly afraid of Irish people. Most other answers correctly point out technicalities regarding the border and immigration is mentioned by almost all of them. What they have not yet pointed out is what immigration they are afraid of / worried about.
Indeed, if we look at research, we find the following, from the abstract of a paper titled Is racial prejudice declining in Britain?:
Little evidence is found for the third hypothesis: British reactions towards black and Asian minorities are broadly similar suggesting racial differences may still be the main factor prompting white hostility to British minorities.
Now, as you might guess, Ireland isn't associated with non-white races at all. France on the other hand, is. For this I will provide two pieces of evidence: firstly Nigel Farage's image on a truck associating nonwhite refugees with the EU in his Brexit campaign (first picture) and secondly the Calais jungle (second picture, showing how it's been reported). Indeed, British seem to be more concerned about the Calais jungle than the French (even though Calais is in France), please consider the third picture showing the result from a YouGov poll.
(Image: Philip Toscano/PA)
(Image: northumbrianreflections)
Hard Brexiteers' supporters aren't as concerned with migration from Ireland as they are with (illegal) migration from mainland Europe (and in turn from the Middle East).
Second question: assuming that this reasoning is correct, why don't influential hard Brexiteers campaign for a hard Irish border in order to actually control immigration?
Because the Brexiteers aren't particularly afraid of Irish people. Most other answers correctly point out technicalities regarding the border and immigration is mentioned by almost all of them. What they have not yet pointed out is what immigration they are afraid of / worried about.
Indeed, if we look at research, we find the following, from the abstract of a paper titled Is racial prejudice declining in Britain?:
Little evidence is found for the third hypothesis: British reactions towards black and Asian minorities are broadly similar suggesting racial differences may still be the main factor prompting white hostility to British minorities.
Now, as you might guess, Ireland isn't associated with non-white races at all. France on the other hand, is. For this I will provide two pieces of evidence: firstly Nigel Farage's image on a truck associating nonwhite refugees with the EU in his Brexit campaign (first picture) and secondly the Calais jungle (second picture, showing how it's been reported). Indeed, British seem to be more concerned about the Calais jungle than the French (even though Calais is in France), please consider the third picture showing the result from a YouGov poll.
(Image: Philip Toscano/PA)
(Image: northumbrianreflections)
edited 2 days ago
answered Apr 12 at 0:43
JJJJJJ
6,58022457
6,58022457
What a depressingly de-humanising picture that one of Nigel Farage is. It's sad that we live in a world where it's considered ok for a politician to stand in front of a photo of people in desperate conditions, and use it to drum up hate in order to support their political agenda.
– JBentley
yesterday
add a comment |
What a depressingly de-humanising picture that one of Nigel Farage is. It's sad that we live in a world where it's considered ok for a politician to stand in front of a photo of people in desperate conditions, and use it to drum up hate in order to support their political agenda.
– JBentley
yesterday
What a depressingly de-humanising picture that one of Nigel Farage is. It's sad that we live in a world where it's considered ok for a politician to stand in front of a photo of people in desperate conditions, and use it to drum up hate in order to support their political agenda.
– JBentley
yesterday
What a depressingly de-humanising picture that one of Nigel Farage is. It's sad that we live in a world where it's considered ok for a politician to stand in front of a photo of people in desperate conditions, and use it to drum up hate in order to support their political agenda.
– JBentley
yesterday
add a comment |
protected by Philipp♦ 2 days ago
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
Reminder to everyone: answer in answers, not in comments. Comments are for suggesting improvements to the question or asking for clarifications, not for answering.
– V2Blast
2 days ago