If there isn't a hard-border what would stop Eastern European immigrants entering UK via Ireland??

David_Evans

melanzana wrote: »

Yes, I know this, but the issue is overstaying the visa (non EU) under the radar when they get to UK, as they can easily do as it is.

I may be missing something, but I am sure someone will put me right.

They could just as easily get a UK visa, arrive at Heathrow and then overstay.

There is absolutely no way any kind of border infrastructure will be put in place between NI and the Republic. It is absolutely politically impossible to do.

The problem is that a large proportion of the British public simply do not understand the GFA and the issues of the border.

David_Evans

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Canada...

Australia..

Both are resource-rich exporters. Main requirement being large machinery and infrastructure.

Not at all comparable to the UK.

David_Evans

melanzana wrote: »

OP asks if there is no hard border what is to stop etc......

It is an open border now and has been for many years. Nothing at the moment to stop those on a visitor visa to Ireland from taking the train to Belfast and hopping across to Cairnryan/Stanraer and onwards is there?

I do realise that FOM allows this for EU citizens, but my point still stands WRT non EU arrivals who want to get to UK.

The issue has nothing to do with the ROI/NI/UK border, it has however got everything to do with UK Border Force/Patrol/Home Office or whatever they are called now. And it was ever thus.

You seem to be suggesting that there could be passport checks between NI and GB mainland?

Even a Corbyn led Labour govt would not want to upset the DUP with this.

The most likely outcome of this situation will be no change.
No change at the NI / RoI border.
No change between NI and GB.

If people or goods are moved across unofficially - then that will just be ignored and not prevented etc.

Effectively there will be no physical 'checks' between the EU (RoI) and the UK.

There may be a theoretical / legal 'border' - but it will not be enforced.

Thrugelmir

David_Evans wrote: »

Both are resource-rich exporters. Main requirement being large machinery and infrastructure.

Not at all comparable to the UK.

I didn't suggest Japan..........:D

David_Evans

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I didn't suggest Japan..........:D

Not sure what you mean..?

Rich2808

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Canada...

Australia..

Of course the difference is they have a skilled and points based immigration system that means only the highly qualified who have skills in need locally and are likely to be all 'net contrbutors' in terms of paying more in in taxes than they receive in public services and state welfare can move there - with the exception of New Zealanders moving to Oz (but its a prosperous nation too with only 4 million people).

That is quite different to allowing free movement of unskilled people from generally poorer nations and allowing them to claim welfare, including housing benefit and use the NHS immediately on arrival whether they work or not or earn more the minimum wage. Highly skilled EU nationals will still qualify to come here - but unskilled, low wage, tax credit and housing benefit claiming types who work a 16 hour week or don't work at all and pay little in tax may struggle.

So its not comparable at all!

David_Evans

Rich2808 wrote: »

Of course the difference is they have a skilled and points based immigration system that means only the highly qualified who have skills in need locally and are likely to be all 'net contrbutors' in terms of paying more in in taxes than they receive in public services and state welfare can move there - with the exception of New Zealanders moving to Oz (but its a prosperous nation too with only 4 million people).

That is quite different to allowing free movement of unskilled people from generally poorer nations and allowing them to claim welfare, including housing benefit and use the NHS immediately on arrival whether they work or not or earn more the minimum wage. Highly skilled EU nationals will still qualify to come here - but unskilled, low wage, tax credit and housing benefit claiming types who work a 16 hour week or don't work at all and pay little in tax may struggle.

So its not comparable at all!

Labour is a resource. Just like coal or timber.
If Canada or Australia allowed loads of poor immigrants into their countries it would lead to more business activity - not less.

Peter Schiff explained this in a recent podcast on Youtube.

More consumers are more consumers. It doesn't matter if they are using medical services or shopping at Tesco.
Do you think NHS staff want less patients? That would mean less demand for their labour and so they could not sell their labour for the same price and wages would fall.

As a worker you want loads of demand for your skills and very little supply.

Rich2808

David_Evans wrote: »

Labour is a resource. Just like coal or timber.
If Canada or Australia allowed loads of poor immigrants into their countries it would lead to more business activity - not less.

Peter Schiff explained this in a recent podcast on Youtube.

More consumers are more consumers. It doesn't matter if they are using medical services or shopping at Tesco.

I expect there are many millions perhaps tens if not hundreds of millions of people in developing nations in Africa and Asia who would love to move to the UK. On your logic we should let everyone come as it would boost GDP - whether they are a brain surgeon or have no skills at all.

Its of course a stupid idea - unless you think the only thing that matters is GDP. Thailand and Indonesia have higher GDPs than Norway - so are of course wealthier nations on your logic. In reality of course GDP per person in Norway is many many times higher.

Of course in reality quality of life, infrastructure, space and housing are also factors. But I am sure we can move at least 20 people into your house alone - you surely won't mind as the boost to 'GDP' would be worth it!

David_Evans

Rich2808 wrote: »

I expect there are many millions perhaps tens if not hundreds of millions of people in developing nations in Africa and Asia who would love to move to the UK. On your logic we should let everyone come as it would boost GDP - whether they are a brain surgeon or have no skills at all.

Its of course a stupid idea - unless you think the only thing that matters is GDP. Thailand and Indonesia have higher GDPs than Norway - so are of course wealthier nations on your logic. In reality of course GDP per person in Norway is many many times higher.

Of course in reality quality of life, infrastructure, space and housing are also factors. But I am sure we can move at least 20 people into your house alone - you surely won't mind as the boost to 'GDP' would be worth it!

So how many brain surgeons would you allow in?
What do you think would happen to the brain surgeons we currently have in the UK, if we allowed in more brain surgeons, but less patients?

If you only allow in skilled migrants, then the price for that labour skill will drop.

One person who probably understands supply and demand well is the former commodities trader, Nigel Farage.

David_Evans

Rich2808 wrote: »

I expect there are many millions perhaps tens if not hundreds of millions of people in developing nations in Africa and Asia who would love to move to the UK. On your logic we should let everyone come as it would boost GDP - whether they are a brain surgeon or have no skills at all.

Its of course a stupid idea - unless you think the only thing that matters is GDP. Thailand and Indonesia have higher GDPs than Norway - so are of course wealthier nations on your logic. In reality of course GDP per person in Norway is many many times higher.

Of course in reality quality of life, infrastructure, space and housing are also factors. But I am sure we can move at least 20 people into your house alone - you surely won't mind as the boost to 'GDP' would be worth it!

If I was a landlord, or a builder etc I'd be very happy that I had another 20 potential customers arriving.
I didn't mention GDP at all.
It's just simple common sense, if you think about it. No need for jargon.