I get your point entirely - but I'll never miss a chance to remind people of Blair's disgraceful and cynical decision.

So, Blair chose not to put restrictions in place in 2004. We all knew that. Blair is a muppet. We all knew that too. I see nothing that says the UK could have put these restrictions in place at a later date, which seems to be what you are saying. I'm happy to be shown otherwise.

Yes, tracking of EU immigration has been a disaster - at first I suspect because Labour in their wisdom had no concept of just how many Eastern Europeans would arrive, and later because no national system has been put in place linking every port of entry to the UK as well every other office an immigrant might present themselves to.

And yes, there have always been limited powers of removal dependant on reviewing every immigrant's status after 90 days (working, student or self-sufficient) - but in reality they can actually stay for "a period of six months and even longer, if they continue to seek employment in the host Member State and have a genuine chance of being engaged".

Someone please tell me how such an ambiguous rule can be effectively enforced.

Then, after 5 years of uninterrupted legal residency (well, no less than 6 months a year!), the immigrant automatically becomes a permanent resident. So, drag it out for a few years, claim you're looking for work, take a job or two in that time and you're legally entitled to stay forever.

And that, guv'nor, is why Eastern (and Southern) Europeans have been flooding here as fast as they can. It's all weighted in their favour.

Cronus wrote:I see nothing that says the UK could have put these restrictions in place at a later date, which seems to be what you are saying. I'm happy to be shown otherwise. Here you go.

Cronus wrote:I see nothing that says the UK could have put these restrictions in place at a later date, which seems to be what you are saying. I'm happy to be shown otherwise. Here you go.

bren2k wrote:Here you go. And? All that says is we could have put restrictions in place in 2004. We know that. It does not say we could have put those same restrictions in place at a later date. Have you even read the article? Yes, Cameron won a vague and ambiguous concession in 2016 in that we could limit some immigration "on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. In addition, if overriding reasons of public interest make it necessary, free movement of workers may be restricted by measures proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued." We knew this too. Given that the government would need to prove cause & effect, establish a legitimate aim and determine exactly what 'proportionate measures' might mean, and then win the inevitable legal challenges, I suspect we'd all be long dead in our graves before the EU agreed to anything meaningful. If they ever did. Which I doubt. Either way, fact is the numbers coming in have been far too high with effectively zero controls, and anyway there were plenty of other reasons for getting out of the EU.

bren2k wrote:Here you go. And? All that says is we could have put restrictions in place in 2004. We know that. It does not say we could have put those same restrictions in place at a later date. Have you even read the article? Yes, Cameron won a vague and ambiguous concession in 2016 in that we could limit some immigration "on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. In addition, if overriding reasons of public interest make it necessary, free movement of workers may be restricted by measures proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued." We knew this too. Given that the government would need to prove cause & effect, establish a legitimate aim and determine exactly what 'proportionate measures' might mean, and then win the inevitable legal challenges, I suspect we'd all be long dead in our graves before the EU agreed to anything meaningful. If they ever did. Which I doubt. Either way, fact is the numbers coming in have been far too high with effectively zero controls, and anyway there were plenty of other reasons for getting out of the EU.

Well it was worth a try - I didn't think it would have much impact on you, but it does provide some context to what became a central plank of the Leave campaign; successive governments have singularly failed to use the controls which were readily available to them around immigration - and the current one was quite happy to demonise those people and blame them for all the ills of society - which is patently not true.

All of this presupposes that FOM is a bad thing of course, which I don't happen to agree with - partly because the facts don't back it up; but it does suggest that the Tory response to the groundswell of public concern that resulted in the rise of UKIP was an error; instead of becoming UKIP to win those voters back, they could have insisted that the incumbent Home Secretary implement the measures that were available to her - thus satisfying to some extent those people who were concerned about immigration.

We're coming at this from entirely different viewpoints of course - I think we're heading for an economic cliff-edge, and that Brexit is an act of national self-harm that will have a negative impact for generations to come; you support it unequivocally, and I will concede that whilst I believe that the vast majority of the minority who voted for it did so because they didn't understand what they were voting for, and were stirred to act by the dishonesty of the dark money funded Leave campaign, you do have a much deeper understanding. So whilst I fundamentally disagree with your view, I can't accuse you of the same thing - and I respect your opinion.

This is now about money - Europe need our money we need a deal - simple stuff to me.

We agree a generous exit fee in return we get what we want in a deal.

It is really that simple now.

But government is totally divided on what to pay up.

Ideally we agree as long a transition as possible to ensure as few c0ck ups as possible as the complexity of what is being attempted becomes clear.

This has to be completed before the next election so that gives everyone a realistic time frame.

You agree a number and the EU will agree to:
Trade deal
No EU court juristiction
No free movement

The EU need the money more than anything else that is the weak point in their position it just need exploiting

That seems to be the sticking point.

Someone needs to be pragmatic about - do the sums and find the break even point of what it is estimated it will cost us in the first 5 year of leaving and you have your number.

That is the UK's leverage - the EU for all its bluster needs the cash desperately. This is not rocket science but that is what happens when you have career politicians who have never had a proper job trying to do commercial deals.

We should have given the task to a the likes of Branson/Sugar etc guys that are used to doing deals on a large scale even the guy from Cobra beer would have done a better job

How far do you think we (the UK) will allow the demands for cash to run.
We are up to over£40 billion so far and the EU are sure to come back saying "that's still not enough" to progress to the next stage of negotiations.
Much as it will cause massive short term pain, we ought to just walk away and agree a settlement figure afterwards.

Much as both sides "need" a deal, the EU will prolong this as long as they possibly can.