Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Valmy]

It's been a terrible debate, both sides have been truly awful but it looks as if Bremain have been more effective with the polls now consistently showing Bremain leads, many in double figures.

Sounds eerily similar to the Scottish Independence deal. Sorry to see your political discourse is as shitty as ours.

[citizen k]

It's been a terrible debate, both sides have been truly awful but it looks as if Bremain have been more effective with the polls now consistently showing Bremain leads, many in double figures.

Sounds eerily similar to the Scottish Independence deal. Sorry to see your political discourse is as shitty as ours.

"When the British people speak everyone, including Members of Parliament, should tremble before their decision."

Tony Benn, 1975

[Sheilbh]

But thats one of my big 3 reasons to worry about the potential for leave winning (the other 2 being a lack of access to the European jobs market and a crashing uk economy. Oh joy)

For me it's only domestic: don't want the Tories to be given the chance to create a post-EU UK and I think this is the English wing of the Scottish independence vote. I don't really think you can be a unionist (with Scotland) and support Brexit - far less if you care a bit about Northern Irish opinion, which I don't.

The EU as protector of social standards or even basic rights... We know that from Eastern Europe, but it is surprising to hear it from a Western country. One of the cradles of democracy no less...

Not really. I think the EU is worse than useless at protecting rights. It seems to be on a mission to erode social rights across Europe and its protection of rights in Hungary and possibly Poland hasn't been great. It's a bit like peace in Europe. I'm passionate about staying in NATO and the ECHR (against Corbyn and the Tories), but ultimately the EU is a trade bloc with ideas above its station. In terms of democracy I think that's why the German courts have to keep reiterating that there are points beyond which the EU actually needs a lot more legitimacy to act.

But I do think if we left the Tories would massively deregulate in the sort of year zero moment of defining a post-Brexit UK.

Only just? Then do not remain and have fun with the Calais jungle! 

You must have me confused for an immigration headbanger The European response to the migration crisis is one of the big reasons I'd want to vote leave because I think it's been a disgrace with the exception of Merkel.

Though I don't understand how that works as Calais is still in France. Say we leave and UKIP marches on London, we tighten security at the Eurotunnel and for lorries, and start patrolling the channel. I don't really see the issue.

It's been a terrible debate, both sides have been truly awful but it looks as if Bremain have been more effective with the polls now consistently showing Bremain leads, many in double figures.

Yeah. I don't know if it's misplaced nostalgia but I get the feeling 75 was better. Not sure about the polls though because of the election and the interesting online-phone difference. I think voters' natural conservatism will win out....but the voters who normally have that are the ones who are most anti-EU and most likely to leave so I don't know.

Edit: And cheers for the welcomes

[FunkMonk]

Hi Shelf 

[Duque de Bragança]

Only just? Then do not remain and have fun with the Calais jungle! 

You must have me confused for an immigration headbanger The European response to the migration crisis is one of the big reasons I'd want to vote leave because I think it's been a disgrace with the exception of Merkel.

Though I don't understand how that works as Calais is still in France. Say we leave and UKIP marches on London, we tighten security at the Eurotunnel and for lorries, and start patrolling the channel. I don't really see the issue.
Edit: And cheers for the welcomes

There are bilateral agreements between France and the UK, in theory not affected by Brexit, but the Eurostar also calls at Brussels...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juxtaposed_controls

Sangatte (proto_Calais Jungle some year ago) and Le Touquet protocols.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_in_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016#cite_ref-33

Since 2003, a bilateral agreement between the UK and France known as Le Touquet Agreement allows British border control officers to screen immigrants before they leave France.[31][32] In March 2016, Emmanuel Macron, the French Minister of Economy, Industry and Digital Affairs, warned that should the UK leave the EU, this agreement could be terminated.[31][32] He added that the Calais jungle could be transferred to mainland England as a result.[31][32] However, French Interior minister Bernard Cazeneuve completely dismissed the claim by Mr. Macron, saying that if the Touquet treaty (which is a bilateral treaty and has nothing to do with the EU) was terminated, it would give a green light to people smugglers and would only boost the numbers of migrants trying to cross Europe.[33]

[Josquius]

Just because it's bilateral between britain and France doesn't mean it automatically won't be affected by Brexit.
It is a billateral agreement in the context of the eu.

I think the thing with assylum seekers is not so much related to this though (passport checking should be the norm in most legal border crossings) but that we wouldnt have the eu law of someone needing to claim assylum at the first member they enter. The eu could in theory just  wave them through and then once they get to the UK we've only much weeker un rules to protest with.

[Tamas]

I think France would be all too happy to just turn away while whoever wants it boards ships/trains/trucks/whatever and let the UK sort them out on the island.

[Martinus]

Could someone explain to me why the scenario like this would actually occur, with or without the bilateral treaty? I mean, I don't see any legal grounds for France to just take its refugees and drop them on the UK side of the border - if they did, they would be in breach of international law, where the first safe country is obliged to take in refugees, but after that point normal rules on border control apply. That's like fearing Ukraine could just take its Muslim immigrants and drop them at Polish border - so what? They would never enter Poland.

[The Brain]

Could someone explain to me why the scenario like this would actually occur, with or without the bilateral treaty? I mean, I don't see any legal grounds for France to just take its refugees and drop them at British border - if they did, they would be in breach of international law, where the first safe country is obliged to take in refugees, but after that point normal rules on border control apply. That's like saying Ukraine would just take its Muslim immigrants and drop them at Polish border - so what? They would never enter Poland.

The French are forbidden by law from observing legal restrictions on weekends.

[Zanza]

Could someone explain to me why the scenario like this would actually occur, with or without the bilateral treaty? I mean, I don't see any legal grounds for France to just take its refugees and drop them on the UK side of the border - if they did, they would be in breach of international law, where the first safe country is obliged to take in refugees, but after that point normal rules on border control apply. That's like fearing Ukraine could just take its Muslim immigrants and drop them at Polish border - so what? They would never enter Poland.

Did you read the news last year on occasion? No country actually enforces it and most countries are more than happy to let refugees pass on to other countries.

[Martinus]

Could someone explain to me why the scenario like this would actually occur, with or without the bilateral treaty? I mean, I don't see any legal grounds for France to just take its refugees and drop them on the UK side of the border - if they did, they would be in breach of international law, where the first safe country is obliged to take in refugees, but after that point normal rules on border control apply. That's like fearing Ukraine could just take its Muslim immigrants and drop them at Polish border - so what? They would never enter Poland.

Did you read the news last year on occasion? No country actually enforces it and most countries are more than happy to let refugees pass on to other countries.

Yeah but that's because of Schengen, no? So if there is an actual border between the UK and France (especially after the UK leaves the EU), I just don't see the threat that the French would do what people here are saying they would do.

[Agelastus]

Could someone explain to me why the scenario like this would actually occur, with or without the bilateral treaty? I mean, I don't see any legal grounds for France to just take its refugees and drop them on the UK side of the border - if they did, they would be in breach of international law, where the first safe country is obliged to take in refugees, but after that point normal rules on border control apply. That's like fearing Ukraine could just take its Muslim immigrants and drop them at Polish border - so what? They would never enter Poland.

Did you read the news last year on occasion? No country actually enforces it and most countries are more than happy to let refugees pass on to other countries.

Fundamentally, I think, no-one is willing to take the risk of the negative press coverage if they actually tried to enforce the rules. Far too easy for an unfortunate incident to happen...and be filmed.

In an era where cameras are so ubiquitous and every internet user is a potential "journalist", I can understand this even if at the same time I damn them for it.

Edit: not that I side with Tyr, here - the deal with France is bilateral and nothing to do with the EU. And while they've given mixed messages about it the most recent statement was that it would stay even if we left the EU.

[Tamas]

Just in general I would like to remind everyone of the silly controversy in Leave's stance:

-EU must be left because its a horrible organisation we can't expect fair treatment in
-We can easily leave since the EU members will be ready to offer us fair deals once we do so.

[Zanza]

Could someone explain to me why the scenario like this would actually occur, with or without the bilateral treaty? I mean, I don't see any legal grounds for France to just take its refugees and drop them on the UK side of the border - if they did, they would be in breach of international law, where the first safe country is obliged to take in refugees, but after that point normal rules on border control apply. That's like fearing Ukraine could just take its Muslim immigrants and drop them at Polish border - so what? They would never enter Poland.

Did you read the news last year on occasion? No country actually enforces it and most countries are more than happy to let refugees pass on to other countries.

Yeah but that's because of Schengen, no? So if there is an actual border between the UK and France (especially after the UK leaves the EU), I just don't see the threat that the French would do what people here are saying they would do.

Schenken is only for citizens and foreigners with visa. It is not for refugees. According to Dublin II the first EU state where refugees arrive has to take care of them.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah but an effect of Schengen is that there's limited effective border control. So if a country just lets refugees through it's difficult to stop it without re-erecting the borders.

But the UK isn't in Schengen and is an island so we have borders. Aside from Marti's legal point this is the part I don't get about the French threat - and I love Macron. Even if they just wave people through, we beef up border security and put them straight back on the boat to France. I just don't get how closing down the Jungle would necessarily have such a big impact on the UK if the UK government wasn't minded to take those migrants in the first place.