The problem is you demand controls on immigration but you compare controls that every other country in the world uses to the Nazis and the only solution you have is to ask people before they come if they can support themselves. And then you need to start asking questions about how workable this is. Who do we ask, what evidence do we need, at what stage do they submit this, who is going to monitor it and process applications, how much is this going to cost? Consider the sheer number of EU27 peoples who enter the UK everyday. Bear in mind not all of them are staying on a long term basis and we are not actively counting people out. Do we now have to finance a robust homeland security force to enforce people's rights to stay once they have entered the country? How often should officers knock on the door of each migrant to make sure they're not surviving off the local food bank? Yet more money being needlessly thrown at the problem.
Let's go back to the original point. You want people to be able to prove they can support themselves. The vast, vast majority of those from the EU who come here to live and work will pass this test easily. But then what happens if they can't support themselves once they have legally crossed the border? You're against deportations because of your ludicrous Nazi obsession. So what has your pointless border test done except massively increase the cost and admin of running a border which seems to work perfectly well as far as EU migration goes.
And before you bring up Nazi deportation trains again, you might want to bear in mind it wasn't the actual deportation part of it that was the biggest issue with those trains, it was what happened to those boarding those trains. And that they were mostly citizens of countries that the Nazis had taken control of, not foreigners being deported to outside of Nazi jurisdiction.
Interesting article. Good to see the main stand at Liverpool FC was completed. Pity about the hospital.
Bit confused though as I'm sure we had an industry insider on here telling us things were booming in the construction industry since the Brexit vote.
Actually it was booming since the Tories/coalition came to power in 2010. At the same time as wages were being driven down by them pesky immigrants, apparently...
I wondered if CL might have moved on to sensible debate. Oh well.
Chrissake man, stop whining and debate, then. What on earth is not "sensible" about these questions @seth plum asked you?
While we're on the subject then. What is the difference between a soft and a hard brexit? What does brexit mean to you in practical terms? Or even in philosophical terms? What will be the benefit of brexit in your eyes?
Go on, answer it. Why do you not do so? And to his last question, I am especially interested in whether you can answer it in the context of your own daily life as a normal and, I perceive, fairly typical British citizen.
ME stop whining? I think most of us can have that accusation put in our direction.
Brexit, amongst other things is being able to decide on who fishes in our waters, not being in the Euro (it's coming), not having to undertake 40 hours of classes to drive a lorry, being free of ever closer political union and more recently being able to control our immigration if we choose to.
I would accept a trading group and certain restrictions this would bring if it was fair and equitable.
The EU influences just about every part of our daily lives. Many are good, some are bad. To continue to trade with the EU block our traders who export to them will still necessarily have to conform to their regulations.
until a deal is struck, we won't know how much will change.
For the sake of balance, here are some of the reasons I'm sure membership of the EU is a good thing.
1. Getting to decide who fishes in our waters and having the critical mass to enforce it.
2. Enforcing a minimum requirement on lorry drivers, so we know anyone driving a lorry wherever we are in Europe drives to a safe standard.
3. Being able to influence how close the EU membership is in terms of political union.
4. Being able to (choose whether to) control immigration.
Obviously, there are many more. Including full, tariff-free trade across all sectors and all industries. And to continue to benefit from these, we need to ensure that we - and all other members - have to adhere to regulations that we - and all other members - influence and ratify.
If we did leave, all these advantages would be put at risk.
@Chizz Tell me more - we can limit the free movement of EU nationals to the UK if we choose to ? Like.....set an annual ceiling, or a monthly limit ?
We can send EU migrants back to their own countries if they do not have the means to support themselves.
So, for example, if a Belgian migrant in London merely signs on to claim benefits, the UK Government can send them home.
Obviously this wouldn't apply to, for example, a Belgian scientist who comes to London to work. Although I'm guessing most people would be happy for such a person to stay and to contribute.
We can't set a monthly limit. Although why would we want to set a limit on people coming to London to work hard and contribute? But we can - and do - set a limit on the number coming here just to claim benefits. And I would argue we don't set that particular limit low enough.
Ah..the old deportation trains solution again. I am generally not in favour of deportations on the grounds of "not economically active", because there are so many variables (like health of the individual, his/her dependents, etc), that in practice it is bordering on inhuman.
Wouldn't a better system be to ask if you "have the means to support yourself/health insurance/place to reside etc", BEFORE someone came to UK ?
No, of course it wouldn't. Because of the rules - and fairness - of reciprocity.
One of the great advantages of EU membership has been the fact we've never been subjected to interrogation on crossing borders. At no stage when I've crossed the Channel on Eurostar, flown to EU countries or moved between them by land, sea or air have I been required to explain how I might be able to support myself. It's a big advantage and one that will seem bigger if we ever lose it.
I'm not in favour of deportations either. But, while we have the right to enforce them, at least it's a counter-argument to the dog whistle rhetoric of those who still argue that "we can't control our borders".
The problem is you demand controls on immigration but you compare controls that every other country in the world uses to the Nazis and the only solution you have is to ask people before they come if they can support themselves. And then you need to start asking questions about how workable this is. Who do we ask, what evidence do we need, at what stage do they submit this, who is going to monitor it and process applications, how much is this going to cost? Consider the sheer number of EU27 peoples who enter the UK everyday. Bear in mind not all of them are staying on a long term basis and we are not actively counting people out. Do we now have to finance a robust homeland security force to enforce people's rights to stay once they have entered the country? How often should officers knock on the door of each migrant to make sure they're not surviving off the local food bank? Yet more money being needlessly thrown at the problem.
Let's go back to the original point. You want people to be able to prove they can support themselves. The vast, vast majority of those from the EU who come here to live and work will pass this test easily. But then what happens if they can't support themselves once they have legally crossed the border? You're against deportations because of your ludicrous Nazi obsession. So what has your pointless border test done except massively increase the cost and admin of running a border which seems to work perfectly well as far as EU migration goes.
And before you bring up Nazi deportation trains again, you might want to bear in mind it wasn't the actual deportation part of it that was the biggest issue with those trains, it was what happened to those boarding those trains. And that they were mostly citizens of countries that the Nazis had taken control of, not foreigners being deported to outside of Nazi jurisdiction.
I will try to answer the points you raise in the same order.
We already use this process for non-EU nationals (what's the purpose of your visit, do you have a return ticket, where will you be residing, how much currency do you have etc), so yes, post Brexit we will have to expand it all visitors. A guy I know is a frequent business commuter to USA and he has some kind of fast-track pass because of his regular bone fide business visits.
Bearing in mind that UK has been outside of the EU before, I have had any number of one-day/one-month Visas to France in my lifetime - yes it was long ago, but it wasn't particularly difficult to administer.
As for financing a border force - yes we do have to. The BBC reported a story recently of a deportation flight to Pakistan with a dozen or so deportees on board and 72 control staff ! This is what it costs at the back end when you get it wrong at the front end.
No need to knock on doors etc - we already have legislation that prevents illegal immigrants from working or obtaining housing, and in your example - a migrant who is longterm "living off a food bank" is not economically active and can be deported under existing EU legislation (which will pass into UK law), although as you know, I am not a fan of deportations using any transport method for reasons already stated.
Once in UK, yes somebody could become unable to support themselves and it is not unreasonable that the UK requires visa applicants to take out some kind of accident/injury insurance - even if this is mandatory and part of the application fee. By way of example, when entering Turkey, folk have to pay an entry fee at the point of immigration (which they can prepay online).
I am not sure whether you want the UK to treat the EU's poorly folk for free post Brexit - if so, then you and I are paying for it and could be queuing behind them.
I noticed another post where you (IMO rightly) decried the running of the Dartford Crossing and the nuisance of lorries. This is because the roads (and indeed the UK) are too crowded - because there are too many people (of all shapes and sizes) here. Now, we could build another couple of bridges and ease the traffic flow, but this takes up land that is being used for some other purpose, so the solution is not infinite, and this is the same for housing. We cannot go on building housing indefinitely when we have no idea what the top number needed will be in 5 years/10 years/20 years time. We will simply run out of available land which in turn will affect agriculture and water management.
As for your final point about trains - you might want to read it again and decide if you still feel that those train transport methods were suitable for human use, regardless of the end destination or the nationality of the users.
The problem is you demand controls on immigration but you compare controls that every other country in the world uses to the Nazis and the only solution you have is to ask people before they come if they can support themselves. And then you need to start asking questions about how workable this is. Who do we ask, what evidence do we need, at what stage do they submit this, who is going to monitor it and process applications, how much is this going to cost? Consider the sheer number of EU27 peoples who enter the UK everyday. Bear in mind not all of them are staying on a long term basis and we are not actively counting people out. Do we now have to finance a robust homeland security force to enforce people's rights to stay once they have entered the country? How often should officers knock on the door of each migrant to make sure they're not surviving off the local food bank? Yet more money being needlessly thrown at the problem.
Let's go back to the original point. You want people to be able to prove they can support themselves. The vast, vast majority of those from the EU who come here to live and work will pass this test easily. But then what happens if they can't support themselves once they have legally crossed the border? You're against deportations because of your ludicrous Nazi obsession. So what has your pointless border test done except massively increase the cost and admin of running a border which seems to work perfectly well as far as EU migration goes.
And before you bring up Nazi deportation trains again, you might want to bear in mind it wasn't the actual deportation part of it that was the biggest issue with those trains, it was what happened to those boarding those trains. And that they were mostly citizens of countries that the Nazis had taken control of, not foreigners being deported to outside of Nazi jurisdiction.
I will try to answer the points you raise in the same order.
We already use this process for non-EU nationals (what's the purpose of your visit, do you have a return ticket, where will you be residing, how much currency do you have etc), so yes, post Brexit we will have to expand it all visitors. A guy I know is a frequent business commuter to USA and he has some kind of fast-track pass because of his regular bone fide business visits.
Bearing in mind that UK has been outside of the EU before, I have had any number of one-day/one-month Visas to France in my lifetime - yes it was long ago, but it wasn't particularly difficult to administer.
As for financing a border force - yes we do have to. The BBC reported a story recently of a deportation flight to Pakistan with a dozen or so deportees on board and 72 control staff ! This is what it costs at the back end when you get it wrong at the front end.
No need to knock on doors etc - we already have legislation that prevents illegal immigrants from working or obtaining housing, and in your example - a migrant who is longterm "living off a food bank" is not economically active and can be deported under existing EU legislation (which will pass into UK law), although as you know, I am not a fan of deportations using any transport method for reasons already stated.
Once in UK, yes somebody could become unable to support themselves and it is not unreasonable that the UK requires visa applicants to take out some kind of accident/injury insurance - even if this is mandatory and part of the application fee. By way of example, when entering Turkey, folk have to pay an entry fee at the point of immigration (which they can prepay online).
I am not sure whether you want the UK to treat the EU's poorly folk for free post Brexit - if so, then you and I are paying for it and could be queuing behind them.
I noticed another post where you (IMO rightly) decried the running of the Dartford Crossing and the nuisance of lorries. This is because the roads (and indeed the UK) are too crowded - because there are too many people (of all shapes and sizes) here. Now, we could build another couple of bridges and ease the traffic flow, but this takes up land that is being used for some other purpose, so the solution is not infinite, and this is the same for housing. We cannot go on building housing indefinitely when we have no idea what the top number needed will be in 5 years/10 years/20 years time. We will simply run out of available land which in turn will affect agriculture and water management.
As for your final point about trains - you might want to read it again and decide if you still feel that those train transport methods were suitable for human use, regardless of the end destination or the nationality of the users.
There is a long land border in Ireland. How do you envisage the checks happening there?
Bearing in mind that UK has been outside of the EU before, I have had any number of one-day/one-month Visas to France in my lifetime - yes it was long ago, but it wasn't particularly difficult to administer.
As for financing a border force - yes we do have to. The BBC reported a story recently of a deportation flight to Pakistan with a dozen or so deportees on board and 72 control staff ! This is what it costs at the back end when you get it wrong at the front end.
No need to knock on doors etc - we already have legislation that prevents illegal immigrants from working or obtaining housing, and in your example - a migrant who is longterm "living off a food bank" is not economically active and can be deported under existing EU legislation (which will pass into UK law), although as you know, I am not a fan of deportations using any transport method for reasons already stated.
Once in UK, yes somebody could become unable to support themselves and it is not unreasonable that the UK requires visa applicants to take out some kind of accident/injury insurance - even if this is mandatory and part of the application fee. By way of example, when entering Turkey, folk have to pay an entry fee at the point of immigration (which they can prepay online).
I am not sure whether you want the UK to treat the EU's poorly folk for free post Brexit - if so, then you and I are paying for it and could be queuing behind them.
I noticed another post where you (IMO rightly) decried the running of the Dartford Crossing and the nuisance of lorries. This is because the roads (and indeed the UK) are too crowded - because there are too many people (of all shapes and sizes) here. Now, we could build another couple of bridges and ease the traffic flow, but this takes up land that is being used for some other purpose, so the solution is not infinite, and this is the same for housing. We cannot go on building housing indefinitely when we have no idea what the top number needed will be in 5 years/10 years/20 years time. We will simply run out of available land which in turn will affect agriculture and water management.
As for your final point about trains - you might want to read it again and decide if you still feel that those train transport methods were suitable for human use, regardless of the end destination or the nationality of the users.
1) So you're against the back-end controls (deportation, homeland security) for reasons that are entirely unclear but seem to revolve around your mistaken belief the Nazis were deporting foreigners from their territory to non-Nazi zones, but you want to strengthen the controls at the point of entry. You haven't really detailed how this would really improve the situation; as I said before, any reasonable test we would introduce (can you support yourself? Have you got somewhere to live? Have you got a job?) the vast majority of EU migrants would pass. So you're proposing introducing a lot more admin for zero effect as we would still be admitting more or less the same number of long-term EU migrants on the above basis. As for healthcare, well, maybe we could carry on with the reciprocal health agreement that we and other EU countries pay into to ensure that those who move around the EU are not left without adequate health cover. Yet another benefit of the EU that Brexiters conveniently forget about when whinging about immigrants.
2) The Dartford Tunnel isn't busy due to immigrants. It is a frustratingly poorly designed piece of highway engineering and the lorries are hardly representative of long-term migrants. Yes you get plenty of EU plates going through there but obviously if they are EU plates then they are only staying long enough to complete their trip then return.
3) You seem to be bogged down with this belief that the Nazis were deporting foreigners on trains. Yes, the trains were not very nice but you seem to be completely missing the central point that the victims were not foreigners in their own countries and they weren't being deported, they were being exterminated.
The problem is you demand controls on immigration but you compare controls that every other country in the world uses to the Nazis and the only solution you have is to ask people before they come if they can support themselves. And then you need to start asking questions about how workable this is. Who do we ask, what evidence do we need, at what stage do they submit this, who is going to monitor it and process applications, how much is this going to cost? Consider the sheer number of EU27 peoples who enter the UK everyday. Bear in mind not all of them are staying on a long term basis and we are not actively counting people out. Do we now have to finance a robust homeland security force to enforce people's rights to stay once they have entered the country? How often should officers knock on the door of each migrant to make sure they're not surviving off the local food bank? Yet more money being needlessly thrown at the problem.
Let's go back to the original point. You want people to be able to prove they can support themselves. The vast, vast majority of those from the EU who come here to live and work will pass this test easily. But then what happens if they can't support themselves once they have legally crossed the border? You're against deportations because of your ludicrous Nazi obsession. So what has your pointless border test done except massively increase the cost and admin of running a border which seems to work perfectly well as far as EU migration goes.
And before you bring up Nazi deportation trains again, you might want to bear in mind it wasn't the actual deportation part of it that was the biggest issue with those trains, it was what happened to those boarding those trains. And that they were mostly citizens of countries that the Nazis had taken control of, not foreigners being deported to outside of Nazi jurisdiction.
I will try to answer the points you raise in the same order.
We already use this process for non-EU nationals (what's the purpose of your visit, do you have a return ticket, where will you be residing, how much currency do you have etc), so yes, post Brexit we will have to expand it all visitors. A guy I know is a frequent business commuter to USA and he has some kind of fast-track pass because of his regular bone fide business visits.
Bearing in mind that UK has been outside of the EU before, I have had any number of one-day/one-month Visas to France in my lifetime - yes it was long ago, but it wasn't particularly difficult to administer.
As for financing a border force - yes we do have to. The BBC reported a story recently of a deportation flight to Pakistan with a dozen or so deportees on board and 72 control staff ! This is what it costs at the back end when you get it wrong at the front end.
No need to knock on doors etc - we already have legislation that prevents illegal immigrants from working or obtaining housing, and in your example - a migrant who is longterm "living off a food bank" is not economically active and can be deported under existing EU legislation (which will pass into UK law), although as you know, I am not a fan of deportations using any transport method for reasons already stated.
Once in UK, yes somebody could become unable to support themselves and it is not unreasonable that the UK requires visa applicants to take out some kind of accident/injury insurance - even if this is mandatory and part of the application fee. By way of example, when entering Turkey, folk have to pay an entry fee at the point of immigration (which they can prepay online).
I am not sure whether you want the UK to treat the EU's poorly folk for free post Brexit - if so, then you and I are paying for it and could be queuing behind them.
I noticed another post where you (IMO rightly) decried the running of the Dartford Crossing and the nuisance of lorries. This is because the roads (and indeed the UK) are too crowded - because there are too many people (of all shapes and sizes) here. Now, we could build another couple of bridges and ease the traffic flow, but this takes up land that is being used for some other purpose, so the solution is not infinite, and this is the same for housing. We cannot go on building housing indefinitely when we have no idea what the top number needed will be in 5 years/10 years/20 years time. We will simply run out of available land which in turn will affect agriculture and water management.
As for your final point about trains - you might want to read it again and decide if you still feel that those train transport methods were suitable for human use, regardless of the end destination or the nationality of the users.
There is a long land border in Ireland. How do you envisage the checks happening there?
We have discussed this on here before and it is not a simple answer. The parties directly involved are going to have to find a workable solution.
Bearing in mind that UK has been outside of the EU before, I have had any number of one-day/one-month Visas to France in my lifetime - yes it was long ago, but it wasn't particularly difficult to administer.
As for financing a border force - yes we do have to. The BBC reported a story recently of a deportation flight to Pakistan with a dozen or so deportees on board and 72 control staff ! This is what it costs at the back end when you get it wrong at the front end.
No need to knock on doors etc - we already have legislation that prevents illegal immigrants from working or obtaining housing, and in your example - a migrant who is longterm "living off a food bank" is not economically active and can be deported under existing EU legislation (which will pass into UK law), although as you know, I am not a fan of deportations using any transport method for reasons already stated.
Once in UK, yes somebody could become unable to support themselves and it is not unreasonable that the UK requires visa applicants to take out some kind of accident/injury insurance - even if this is mandatory and part of the application fee. By way of example, when entering Turkey, folk have to pay an entry fee at the point of immigration (which they can prepay online).
I am not sure whether you want the UK to treat the EU's poorly folk for free post Brexit - if so, then you and I are paying for it and could be queuing behind them.
I noticed another post where you (IMO rightly) decried the running of the Dartford Crossing and the nuisance of lorries. This is because the roads (and indeed the UK) are too crowded - because there are too many people (of all shapes and sizes) here. Now, we could build another couple of bridges and ease the traffic flow, but this takes up land that is being used for some other purpose, so the solution is not infinite, and this is the same for housing. We cannot go on building housing indefinitely when we have no idea what the top number needed will be in 5 years/10 years/20 years time. We will simply run out of available land which in turn will affect agriculture and water management.
As for your final point about trains - you might want to read it again and decide if you still feel that those train transport methods were suitable for human use, regardless of the end destination or the nationality of the users.
1) So you're against the back-end controls (deportation, homeland security) for reasons that are entirely unclear but seem to revolve around your mistaken belief the Nazis were deporting foreigners from their territory to non-Nazi zones, but you want to strengthen the controls at the point of entry. You haven't really detailed how this would really improve the situation; as I said before, any reasonable test we would introduce (can you support yourself? Have you got somewhere to live? Have you got a job?) the vast majority of EU migrants would pass. So you're proposing introducing a lot more admin for zero effect as we would still be admitting more or less the same number of long-term EU migrants on the above basis. As for healthcare, well, maybe we could carry on with the reciprocal health agreement that we and other EU countries pay into to ensure that those who move around the EU are not left without adequate health cover. Yet another benefit of the EU that Brexiters conveniently forget about when whinging about immigrants.
2) The Dartford Tunnel isn't busy due to immigrants. It is a frustratingly poorly designed piece of highway engineering and the lorries are hardly representative of long-term migrants. Yes you get plenty of EU plates going through there but obviously if they are EU plates then they are only staying long enough to complete their trip then return.
3) You seem to be bogged down with this belief that the Nazis were deporting foreigners on trains. Yes, the trains were not very nice but you seem to be completely missing the central point that the victims were not foreigners in their own countries and they weren't being deported, they were being exterminated.
You need to control your obsession with Nazis and trains.
I am against deportations (generally) by any means of transport, because I don't believe it belongs in the modern era, and the practicalities (as I said before, health of the individual, dependents, etc) means that IMO rounding up people who are "not economically active" and moving them to another area (in the UK) or outside the UK is not a solution to the overcrowded UK. I hope that has made my position clear.
Your point about EU migrants passing the entry visa questions is probably correct - and when we think we have enough migrant workers here - we can stop issuing visas, so we would not be "admitting more or less the same number of EU migrants" unless UK wanted to.
Reciprocal health care - yep, I'm up for that, let's hope the negotiators have it on their list.
Tunnel - The point isn't about WHO is using the tunnel, it's about how many people it has to service. The answer is too many - because there are too many people (of all shapes and sizes) in the UK. A point of interest is that when I was a kid - there was just a single bore at Dartford, shared in both directions - and there were often queues then. We have quadrupled the capacity of the crossing and there are still queues - shall we build another 8 lanes going over the river ? Without control of immigration, we don't know how many lanes we will need in X years time, because we have an open door to tens of millions.
I don't want to get bogged down in WW2, but just for historical accuracy, the Nazis put millions of German people in concentration camps and killed tens of thousands of them. So let's just leave that stuff aside from now on as it is not central to the discussion.
The problem is you demand controls on immigration but you compare controls that every other country in the world uses to the Nazis and the only solution you have is to ask people before they come if they can support themselves. And then you need to start asking questions about how workable this is. Who do we ask, what evidence do we need, at what stage do they submit this, who is going to monitor it and process applications, how much is this going to cost? Consider the sheer number of EU27 peoples who enter the UK everyday. Bear in mind not all of them are staying on a long term basis and we are not actively counting people out. Do we now have to finance a robust homeland security force to enforce people's rights to stay once they have entered the country? How often should officers knock on the door of each migrant to make sure they're not surviving off the local food bank? Yet more money being needlessly thrown at the problem.
Let's go back to the original point. You want people to be able to prove they can support themselves. The vast, vast majority of those from the EU who come here to live and work will pass this test easily. But then what happens if they can't support themselves once they have legally crossed the border? You're against deportations because of your ludicrous Nazi obsession. So what has your pointless border test done except massively increase the cost and admin of running a border which seems to work perfectly well as far as EU migration goes.
And before you bring up Nazi deportation trains again, you might want to bear in mind it wasn't the actual deportation part of it that was the biggest issue with those trains, it was what happened to those boarding those trains. And that they were mostly citizens of countries that the Nazis had taken control of, not foreigners being deported to outside of Nazi jurisdiction.
I will try to answer the points you raise in the same order.
We already use this process for non-EU nationals (what's the purpose of your visit, do you have a return ticket, where will you be residing, how much currency do you have etc), so yes, post Brexit we will have to expand it all visitors. A guy I know is a frequent business commuter to USA and he has some kind of fast-track pass because of his regular bone fide business visits.
Bearing in mind that UK has been outside of the EU before, I have had any number of one-day/one-month Visas to France in my lifetime - yes it was long ago, but it wasn't particularly difficult to administer.
As for financing a border force - yes we do have to. The BBC reported a story recently of a deportation flight to Pakistan with a dozen or so deportees on board and 72 control staff ! This is what it costs at the back end when you get it wrong at the front end.
No need to knock on doors etc - we already have legislation that prevents illegal immigrants from working or obtaining housing, and in your example - a migrant who is longterm "living off a food bank" is not economically active and can be deported under existing EU legislation (which will pass into UK law), although as you know, I am not a fan of deportations using any transport method for reasons already stated.
Once in UK, yes somebody could become unable to support themselves and it is not unreasonable that the UK requires visa applicants to take out some kind of accident/injury insurance - even if this is mandatory and part of the application fee. By way of example, when entering Turkey, folk have to pay an entry fee at the point of immigration (which they can prepay online).
I am not sure whether you want the UK to treat the EU's poorly folk for free post Brexit - if so, then you and I are paying for it and could be queuing behind them.
I noticed another post where you (IMO rightly) decried the running of the Dartford Crossing and the nuisance of lorries. This is because the roads (and indeed the UK) are too crowded - because there are too many people (of all shapes and sizes) here. Now, we could build another couple of bridges and ease the traffic flow, but this takes up land that is being used for some other purpose, so the solution is not infinite, and this is the same for housing. We cannot go on building housing indefinitely when we have no idea what the top number needed will be in 5 years/10 years/20 years time. We will simply run out of available land which in turn will affect agriculture and water management.
As for your final point about trains - you might want to read it again and decide if you still feel that those train transport methods were suitable for human use, regardless of the end destination or the nationality of the users.
There is a long land border in Ireland. How do you envisage the checks happening there?
We have discussed this on here before and it is not a simple answer. The parties directly involved are going to have to find a workable solution.
Bearing in mind that UK has been outside of the EU before, I have had any number of one-day/one-month Visas to France in my lifetime - yes it was long ago, but it wasn't particularly difficult to administer.
As for financing a border force - yes we do have to. The BBC reported a story recently of a deportation flight to Pakistan with a dozen or so deportees on board and 72 control staff ! This is what it costs at the back end when you get it wrong at the front end.
No need to knock on doors etc - we already have legislation that prevents illegal immigrants from working or obtaining housing, and in your example - a migrant who is longterm "living off a food bank" is not economically active and can be deported under existing EU legislation (which will pass into UK law), although as you know, I am not a fan of deportations using any transport method for reasons already stated.
Once in UK, yes somebody could become unable to support themselves and it is not unreasonable that the UK requires visa applicants to take out some kind of accident/injury insurance - even if this is mandatory and part of the application fee. By way of example, when entering Turkey, folk have to pay an entry fee at the point of immigration (which they can prepay online).
I am not sure whether you want the UK to treat the EU's poorly folk for free post Brexit - if so, then you and I are paying for it and could be queuing behind them.
I noticed another post where you (IMO rightly) decried the running of the Dartford Crossing and the nuisance of lorries. This is because the roads (and indeed the UK) are too crowded - because there are too many people (of all shapes and sizes) here. Now, we could build another couple of bridges and ease the traffic flow, but this takes up land that is being used for some other purpose, so the solution is not infinite, and this is the same for housing. We cannot go on building housing indefinitely when we have no idea what the top number needed will be in 5 years/10 years/20 years time. We will simply run out of available land which in turn will affect agriculture and water management.
As for your final point about trains - you might want to read it again and decide if you still feel that those train transport methods were suitable for human use, regardless of the end destination or the nationality of the users.
1) So you're against the back-end controls (deportation, homeland security) for reasons that are entirely unclear but seem to revolve around your mistaken belief the Nazis were deporting foreigners from their territory to non-Nazi zones, but you want to strengthen the controls at the point of entry. You haven't really detailed how this would really improve the situation; as I said before, any reasonable test we would introduce (can you support yourself? Have you got somewhere to live? Have you got a job?) the vast majority of EU migrants would pass. So you're proposing introducing a lot more admin for zero effect as we would still be admitting more or less the same number of long-term EU migrants on the above basis. As for healthcare, well, maybe we could carry on with the reciprocal health agreement that we and other EU countries pay into to ensure that those who move around the EU are not left without adequate health cover. Yet another benefit of the EU that Brexiters conveniently forget about when whinging about immigrants.
2) The Dartford Tunnel isn't busy due to immigrants. It is a frustratingly poorly designed piece of highway engineering and the lorries are hardly representative of long-term migrants. Yes you get plenty of EU plates going through there but obviously if they are EU plates then they are only staying long enough to complete their trip then return.
3) You seem to be bogged down with this belief that the Nazis were deporting foreigners on trains. Yes, the trains were not very nice but you seem to be completely missing the central point that the victims were not foreigners in their own countries and they weren't being deported, they were being exterminated.
You need to control your obsession with Nazis and trains.
I am against deportations (generally) by any means of transport, because I don't believe it belongs in the modern era, and the practicalities (as I said before, health of the individual, dependents, etc) means that IMO rounding up people who are "not economically active" and moving them to another area (in the UK) or outside the UK is not a solution to the overcrowded UK. I hope that has made my position clear.
Your point about EU migrants passing the entry visa questions is probably correct - and when we think we have enough migrant workers here - we can stop issuing visas, so we would not be "admitting more or less the same number of EU migrants" unless UK wanted to.
Reciprocal health care - yep, I'm up for that, let's hope the negotiators have it on their list.
Tunnel - The point isn't about WHO is using the tunnel, it's about how many people it has to service. The answer is too many - because there are too many people (of all shapes and sizes) in the UK. A point of interest is that when I was a kid - there was just a single bore at Dartford, shared in both directions - and there were often queues then. We have quadrupled the capacity of the crossing and there are still queues - shall we build another 8 lanes going over the river ? Without control of immigration, we don't know how many lanes we will need in X years time, because we have an open door to tens of millions.
I don't want to get bogged down in WW2, but just for historical accuracy, the Nazis put millions of German people in concentration camps and killed tens of thousands of them. So let's just leave that stuff aside from now on as it is not central to the discussion.
1) you're the one who keeps banging on about trains and Nazis as it seems to be your default position when you're losing the argument is to compare an EU policy to Nazism but glad you've now changed your mind that they simply weren't deporting foreigners as your previous posts were hugely inaccurate and insensitive.
2) your reasons opposing deportation are flimsy and not grounded in reason. Deportation is the only way to make sure those who have overstayed their welcome leave the country. Unless you wish to destroy our tourism industry by enacting the same checks on short term migrants as you propose on long term then without a hugely expensive homeland security constantly monitoring all tourists then no matter how good pre-border crossing checks are, they are meaningless unless we can enforce it post-crossing.
3) I cannot see any government of any stripe introducing visas for EU workers. There is no political will for it, plus we are heavily reliant on skilled labour from the EU so all pre-border visas and checks would do would massively increase the admin and cost of something which already works perfectly well.
4) you are simply wrong that 'there are too many people' in the country based on the fact the tunnel area is poorly designed. Parts of the UK are overpopulated and that is the reason why the tunnel is so busy because of the surrounding area, but it is mostly because of how poorly designed it is. Whilst the tunnel is usually too busy, the bridge is often fine to cross even when the tunnel is jammed, because the area preceding the bridge is much more conducive to correct traffic flow.
Despite my contempt for all things SNP, Ian Blackford raised a valuable point: the Government still has not produced any official reason for why they are still pursuing Brexit and the benefits of doing so.
Normally the government would at least, when pursuing a policy, be able to state why it is doing it and what benefits it will bring. They have done neither. The referendum result isn't in of itself a reason to pursue Brexit, it is only a reason why Parliament should discuss it in the first place.
Just catching up on this and can't believe we are seriously using the Dartford crossing as some sort of warped indication of why we are pursuing Brexit. There's probably a dozen better reasons, within our control or not, for why that junction is a nightmare than blaming immigrants for coming to live and work here.
Didn't Boris once call out Farage for claiming immigration was the reason he rocked up late for a meeting or something?
Just catching up on this and can't believe we are seriously using the Dartford crossing as some sort of warped indication of why we are pursuing Brexit. There's probably a dozen better reasons, within our control or not, for why that junction is a nightmare than blaming immigrants for coming to live and work here.
Didn't Boris once call out Farage for claiming immigration was the reason he rocked up late for a meeting or something?
Basically all of Valiantphil's posts can be summarised as:
Just catching up on this and can't believe we are seriously using the Dartford crossing as some sort of warped indication of why we are pursuing Brexit. There's probably a dozen better reasons, within our control or not, for why that junction is a nightmare than blaming immigrants for coming to live and work here.
Didn't Boris once call out Farage for claiming immigration was the reason he rocked up late for a meeting or something?
You didn't read it all properly buddy.
In summary:
Fiiish complains (rightly) about delays at the crossing VP says too many people in the country, everywhere is busy Fiiish says lorries with foreign number plates will go back so don't blame them VP says I don't blame them, it's nothing to do with number plates - just too many people in total. Fiiish says, there are not too many people, it's just poorly designed on the Kent side.
IMO there are many indications of why the UK is overpopulated, but unless Remain voters open their eyes to the reasons behind the leave vote, then we will go round in circles forever.
Personally, if the EU was to give UK a method of controlling permanent EU migration - even if it was just for a temporary period, then I would lobby to stay in the EU. This is because I have looked into the reasons why folk voted remain and understand many of their concerns. All we need now, is vice-versa.
Just catching up on this and can't believe we are seriously using the Dartford crossing as some sort of warped indication of why we are pursuing Brexit. There's probably a dozen better reasons, within our control or not, for why that junction is a nightmare than blaming immigrants for coming to live and work here.
Didn't Boris once call out Farage for claiming immigration was the reason he rocked up late for a meeting or something?
You didn't read it all properly buddy.
In summary:
Fiiish complains (rightly) about delays at the crossing VP says too many people in the country, everywhere is busy Fiiish says lorries with foreign number plates will go back so don't blame them VP says I don't blame them, it's nothing to do with number plates - just too many people in total. Fiiish says, there are not too many people, it's just poorly designed on the Kent side.
IMO there are many indications of why the UK is overpopulated, but unless Remain voters open their eyes to the reasons behind the leave vote, then we will go round in circles forever.
Personally, if the EU was to give UK a method of controlling permanent EU migration - even if it was just for a temporary period, then I would lobby to stay in the EU. This is because I have looked into the reasons why folk voted remain and understand many of their concerns. All we need now, is vice-versa.
Now i know why your called valiant... If you won the lottery and gave them a decent share they would bloody moan is wasn't enough... Mind you, you would have to give one of them two shares, just like phil silvers did in a mad mad world. Give up mate, let the drama queens keep moaning amongst themselves .
Just been to an event at parliament for the association of British healthcare industries... The message from this multibillion pound (about 17bn) industry, that is massive for exporting (this is our manufacturing base...) Is simple. Keep the same regulatory controls and standards as the EU, and allow the flow of labour.
Hmmm, I think I can see a bit of a problem with this suggestion.
Unless the UK agrees to free movement then the service industries like healthcare and catering are going to face significant labour shortages, there is simply no doubt about it, which means higher wages and higher prices.
Putting in a strict visa regime for unskilled workers to work in retirement homes or in industrial kitchens is never going to work, someone has to pay for that regime and it will either be the applicant (why would they pay the UK when they can work in 27 other markets for free?), the employers (good luck with that - they will pass the costs on anyway) or the good old British tax-payer.
With a rapidly ageing population the UK needs all the young workers it can get and who are prepared to work hard for not much more than minimum wage in the service sector, that's not going to be possible without free movement unless the UK opens up the labour market to selected Asian/African countries which I am sure would delight that great fan of multiculturalism Nigel Farage.
100% agree. What’s not blindingly obvious about this to those that “want control over our borders” Not a single thing about Brexit stacks up in any positive way.
The problem is you demand controls on immigration but you compare controls that every other country in the world uses to the Nazis and the only solution you have is to ask people before they come if they can support themselves. And then you need to start asking questions about how workable this is. Who do we ask, what evidence do we need, at what stage do they submit this, who is going to monitor it and process applications, how much is this going to cost? Consider the sheer number of EU27 peoples who enter the UK everyday. Bear in mind not all of them are staying on a long term basis and we are not actively counting people out. Do we now have to finance a robust homeland security force to enforce people's rights to stay once they have entered the country? How often should officers knock on the door of each migrant to make sure they're not surviving off the local food bank? Yet more money being needlessly thrown at the problem.
Let's go back to the original point. You want people to be able to prove they can support themselves. The vast, vast majority of those from the EU who come here to live and work will pass this test easily. But then what happens if they can't support themselves once they have legally crossed the border? You're against deportations because of your ludicrous Nazi obsession. So what has your pointless border test done except massively increase the cost and admin of running a border which seems to work perfectly well as far as EU migration goes.
And before you bring up Nazi deportation trains again, you might want to bear in mind it wasn't the actual deportation part of it that was the biggest issue with those trains, it was what happened to those boarding those trains. And that they were mostly citizens of countries that the Nazis had taken control of, not foreigners being deported to outside of Nazi jurisdiction.
I will try to answer the points you raise in the same order.
We already use this process for non-EU nationals (what's the purpose of your visit, do you have a return ticket, where will you be residing, how much currency do you have etc), so yes, post Brexit we will have to expand it all visitors. A guy I know is a frequent business commuter to USA and he has some kind of fast-track pass because of his regular bone fide business visits.
Bearing in mind that UK has been outside of the EU before, I have had any number of one-day/one-month Visas to France in my lifetime - yes it was long ago, but it wasn't particularly difficult to administer.
As for financing a border force - yes we do have to. The BBC reported a story recently of a deportation flight to Pakistan with a dozen or so deportees on board and 72 control staff ! This is what it costs at the back end when you get it wrong at the front end.
No need to knock on doors etc - we already have legislation that prevents illegal immigrants from working or obtaining housing, and in your example - a migrant who is longterm "living off a food bank" is not economically active and can be deported under existing EU legislation (which will pass into UK law), although as you know, I am not a fan of deportations using any transport method for reasons already stated.
Once in UK, yes somebody could become unable to support themselves and it is not unreasonable that the UK requires visa applicants to take out some kind of accident/injury insurance - even if this is mandatory and part of the application fee. By way of example, when entering Turkey, folk have to pay an entry fee at the point of immigration (which they can prepay online).
I am not sure whether you want the UK to treat the EU's poorly folk for free post Brexit - if so, then you and I are paying for it and could be queuing behind them.
I noticed another post where you (IMO rightly) decried the running of the Dartford Crossing and the nuisance of lorries. This is because the roads (and indeed the UK) are too crowded - because there are too many people (of all shapes and sizes) here. Now, we could build another couple of bridges and ease the traffic flow, but this takes up land that is being used for some other purpose, so the solution is not infinite, and this is the same for housing. We cannot go on building housing indefinitely when we have no idea what the top number needed will be in 5 years/10 years/20 years time. We will simply run out of available land which in turn will affect agriculture and water management.
As for your final point about trains - you might want to read it again and decide if you still feel that those train transport methods were suitable for human use, regardless of the end destination or the nationality of the users.
There is a long land border in Ireland. How do you envisage the checks happening there?
Good point Seth. I’m surprised you havn’t though of making it before.
The problem is you demand controls on immigration but you compare controls that every other country in the world uses to the Nazis and the only solution you have is to ask people before they come if they can support themselves. And then you need to start asking questions about how workable this is. Who do we ask, what evidence do we need, at what stage do they submit this, who is going to monitor it and process applications, how much is this going to cost? Consider the sheer number of EU27 peoples who enter the UK everyday. Bear in mind not all of them are staying on a long term basis and we are not actively counting people out. Do we now have to finance a robust homeland security force to enforce people's rights to stay once they have entered the country? How often should officers knock on the door of each migrant to make sure they're not surviving off the local food bank? Yet more money being needlessly thrown at the problem.
Let's go back to the original point. You want people to be able to prove they can support themselves. The vast, vast majority of those from the EU who come here to live and work will pass this test easily. But then what happens if they can't support themselves once they have legally crossed the border? You're against deportations because of your ludicrous Nazi obsession. So what has your pointless border test done except massively increase the cost and admin of running a border which seems to work perfectly well as far as EU migration goes.
And before you bring up Nazi deportation trains again, you might want to bear in mind it wasn't the actual deportation part of it that was the biggest issue with those trains, it was what happened to those boarding those trains. And that they were mostly citizens of countries that the Nazis had taken control of, not foreigners being deported to outside of Nazi jurisdiction.
I will try to answer the points you raise in the same order.
We already use this process for non-EU nationals (what's the purpose of your visit, do you have a return ticket, where will you be residing, how much currency do you have etc), so yes, post Brexit we will have to expand it all visitors. A guy I know is a frequent business commuter to USA and he has some kind of fast-track pass because of his regular bone fide business visits.
Bearing in mind that UK has been outside of the EU before, I have had any number of one-day/one-month Visas to France in my lifetime - yes it was long ago, but it wasn't particularly difficult to administer.
As for financing a border force - yes we do have to. The BBC reported a story recently of a deportation flight to Pakistan with a dozen or so deportees on board and 72 control staff ! This is what it costs at the back end when you get it wrong at the front end.
No need to knock on doors etc - we already have legislation that prevents illegal immigrants from working or obtaining housing, and in your example - a migrant who is longterm "living off a food bank" is not economically active and can be deported under existing EU legislation (which will pass into UK law), although as you know, I am not a fan of deportations using any transport method for reasons already stated.
Once in UK, yes somebody could become unable to support themselves and it is not unreasonable that the UK requires visa applicants to take out some kind of accident/injury insurance - even if this is mandatory and part of the application fee. By way of example, when entering Turkey, folk have to pay an entry fee at the point of immigration (which they can prepay online).
I am not sure whether you want the UK to treat the EU's poorly folk for free post Brexit - if so, then you and I are paying for it and could be queuing behind them.
I noticed another post where you (IMO rightly) decried the running of the Dartford Crossing and the nuisance of lorries. This is because the roads (and indeed the UK) are too crowded - because there are too many people (of all shapes and sizes) here. Now, we could build another couple of bridges and ease the traffic flow, but this takes up land that is being used for some other purpose, so the solution is not infinite, and this is the same for housing. We cannot go on building housing indefinitely when we have no idea what the top number needed will be in 5 years/10 years/20 years time. We will simply run out of available land which in turn will affect agriculture and water management.
As for your final point about trains - you might want to read it again and decide if you still feel that those train transport methods were suitable for human use, regardless of the end destination or the nationality of the users.
There is a long land border in Ireland. How do you envisage the checks happening there?
We have discussed this on here before and it is not a simple answer. The parties directly involved are going to have to find a workable solution.
19 months after the referendum and not one person has a fracking clue how a workable solution will be found. Encouraging isn’t it.
The problem is you demand controls on immigration but you compare controls that every other country in the world uses to the Nazis and the only solution you have is to ask people before they come if they can support themselves. And then you need to start asking questions about how workable this is. Who do we ask, what evidence do we need, at what stage do they submit this, who is going to monitor it and process applications, how much is this going to cost? Consider the sheer number of EU27 peoples who enter the UK everyday. Bear in mind not all of them are staying on a long term basis and we are not actively counting people out. Do we now have to finance a robust homeland security force to enforce people's rights to stay once they have entered the country? How often should officers knock on the door of each migrant to make sure they're not surviving off the local food bank? Yet more money being needlessly thrown at the problem.
Let's go back to the original point. You want people to be able to prove they can support themselves. The vast, vast majority of those from the EU who come here to live and work will pass this test easily. But then what happens if they can't support themselves once they have legally crossed the border? You're against deportations because of your ludicrous Nazi obsession. So what has your pointless border test done except massively increase the cost and admin of running a border which seems to work perfectly well as far as EU migration goes.
And before you bring up Nazi deportation trains again, you might want to bear in mind it wasn't the actual deportation part of it that was the biggest issue with those trains, it was what happened to those boarding those trains. And that they were mostly citizens of countries that the Nazis had taken control of, not foreigners being deported to outside of Nazi jurisdiction.
I will try to answer the points you raise in the same order.
We already use this process for non-EU nationals (what's the purpose of your visit, do you have a return ticket, where will you be residing, how much currency do you have etc), so yes, post Brexit we will have to expand it all visitors. A guy I know is a frequent business commuter to USA and he has some kind of fast-track pass because of his regular bone fide business visits.
Bearing in mind that UK has been outside of the EU before, I have had any number of one-day/one-month Visas to France in my lifetime - yes it was long ago, but it wasn't particularly difficult to administer.
As for financing a border force - yes we do have to. The BBC reported a story recently of a deportation flight to Pakistan with a dozen or so deportees on board and 72 control staff ! This is what it costs at the back end when you get it wrong at the front end.
No need to knock on doors etc - we already have legislation that prevents illegal immigrants from working or obtaining housing, and in your example - a migrant who is longterm "living off a food bank" is not economically active and can be deported under existing EU legislation (which will pass into UK law), although as you know, I am not a fan of deportations using any transport method for reasons already stated.
Once in UK, yes somebody could become unable to support themselves and it is not unreasonable that the UK requires visa applicants to take out some kind of accident/injury insurance - even if this is mandatory and part of the application fee. By way of example, when entering Turkey, folk have to pay an entry fee at the point of immigration (which they can prepay online).
I am not sure whether you want the UK to treat the EU's poorly folk for free post Brexit - if so, then you and I are paying for it and could be queuing behind them.
I noticed another post where you (IMO rightly) decried the running of the Dartford Crossing and the nuisance of lorries. This is because the roads (and indeed the UK) are too crowded - because there are too many people (of all shapes and sizes) here. Now, we could build another couple of bridges and ease the traffic flow, but this takes up land that is being used for some other purpose, so the solution is not infinite, and this is the same for housing. We cannot go on building housing indefinitely when we have no idea what the top number needed will be in 5 years/10 years/20 years time. We will simply run out of available land which in turn will affect agriculture and water management.
As for your final point about trains - you might want to read it again and decide if you still feel that those train transport methods were suitable for human use, regardless of the end destination or the nationality of the users.
There is a long land border in Ireland. How do you envisage the checks happening there?
We have discussed this on here before and it is not a simple answer. The parties directly involved are going to have to find a workable solution.
19 months after the referendum and not one person has a fracking clue how a workable solution will be found. Encouraging isn’t it.
Don't worry. Because in fourteen months' time, it will have been sorted out. There will be a workable, simple, inexpensive, robust solution in place, tested, working by the end of March 2019.
Why am I so confident? Because it's the will of the people. So we have to get on with it.
That's about it though. Nothing else I have heard, read or imagined comes close to a solution that allows for the free movement of people and goods (as is required in Ireland) and the restricted movement of people and goods (as is required of a country that's outside the EU. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
But, on the other hand, it's the will of the people and we have to get on with it. So it'll all be alright in the end. Won't it?
Just catching up on this and can't believe we are seriously using the Dartford crossing as some sort of warped indication of why we are pursuing Brexit. There's probably a dozen better reasons, within our control or not, for why that junction is a nightmare than blaming immigrants for coming to live and work here.
Didn't Boris once call out Farage for claiming immigration was the reason he rocked up late for a meeting or something?
You didn't read it all properly buddy.
In summary:
Fiiish complains (rightly) about delays at the crossing VP says too many people in the country, everywhere is busy Fiiish says lorries with foreign number plates will go back so don't blame them VP says I don't blame them, it's nothing to do with number plates - just too many people in total. Fiiish says, there are not too many people, it's just poorly designed on the Kent side.
IMO there are many indications of why the UK is overpopulated, but unless Remain voters open their eyes to the reasons behind the leave vote, then we will go round in circles forever.
Personally, if the EU was to give UK a method of controlling permanent EU migration - even if it was just for a temporary period, then I would lobby to stay in the EU. This is because I have looked into the reasons why folk voted remain and understand many of their concerns. All we need now, is vice-versa.
I'm pretty sure I know why some people voted Leave tbh.
If polls started to consistently show 65%+ in favour of remaining it might get interesting but I'm not confident that will happen given the needle has only moved 7% since June 2016.
If polls started to consistently show 65%+ in favour of remaining it might get interesting but I'm not confident that will happen given the needle has only moved 7% since June 2016.
I think 65 -35 is not going to happen. However if we are consistently seeing around 57-43 on the tracker poll, I cannot really see how Brexit can proceed without a new referendum, given that we left on 52-48.
Never thought i would end up quoting Thatcher to make a point...
Comments
Let's go back to the original point. You want people to be able to prove they can support themselves. The vast, vast majority of those from the EU who come here to live and work will pass this test easily. But then what happens if they can't support themselves once they have legally crossed the border? You're against deportations because of your ludicrous Nazi obsession. So what has your pointless border test done except massively increase the cost and admin of running a border which seems to work perfectly well as far as EU migration goes.
And before you bring up Nazi deportation trains again, you might want to bear in mind it wasn't the actual deportation part of it that was the biggest issue with those trains, it was what happened to those boarding those trains. And that they were mostly citizens of countries that the Nazis had taken control of, not foreigners being deported to outside of Nazi jurisdiction.
Bit confused though as I'm sure we had an industry insider on here telling us things were booming in the construction industry since the Brexit vote.
One of the great advantages of EU membership has been the fact we've never been subjected to interrogation on crossing borders. At no stage when I've crossed the Channel on Eurostar, flown to EU countries or moved between them by land, sea or air have I been required to explain how I might be able to support myself. It's a big advantage and one that will seem bigger if we ever lose it.
I'm not in favour of deportations either. But, while we have the right to enforce them, at least it's a counter-argument to the dog whistle rhetoric of those who still argue that "we can't control our borders".
I will try to answer the points you raise in the same order.
We already use this process for non-EU nationals (what's the purpose of your visit, do you have a return ticket, where will you be residing, how much currency do you have etc), so yes, post Brexit we will have to expand it all visitors.
A guy I know is a frequent business commuter to USA and he has some kind of fast-track pass because of his regular bone fide business visits.
Bearing in mind that UK has been outside of the EU before, I have had any number of one-day/one-month Visas to France in my lifetime - yes it was long ago, but it wasn't particularly difficult to administer.
As for financing a border force - yes we do have to.
The BBC reported a story recently of a deportation flight to Pakistan with a dozen or so deportees on board and 72 control staff ! This is what it costs at the back end when you get it wrong at the front end.
No need to knock on doors etc - we already have legislation that prevents illegal immigrants from working or obtaining housing, and in your example - a migrant who is longterm "living off a food bank" is not economically active and can be deported under existing EU legislation (which will pass into UK law), although as you know, I am not a fan of deportations using any transport method for reasons already stated.
Once in UK, yes somebody could become unable to support themselves and it is not unreasonable that the UK requires visa applicants to take out some kind of accident/injury insurance - even if this is mandatory and part of the application fee.
By way of example, when entering Turkey, folk have to pay an entry fee at the point of immigration (which they can prepay online).
I am not sure whether you want the UK to treat the EU's poorly folk for free post Brexit - if so, then you and I are paying for it and could be queuing behind them.
I noticed another post where you (IMO rightly) decried the running of the Dartford Crossing and the nuisance of lorries. This is because the roads (and indeed the UK) are too crowded - because there are too many people (of all shapes and sizes) here.
Now, we could build another couple of bridges and ease the traffic flow, but this takes up land that is being used for some other purpose, so the solution is not infinite, and this is the same for housing.
We cannot go on building housing indefinitely when we have no idea what the top number needed will be in 5 years/10 years/20 years time. We will simply run out of available land which in turn will affect agriculture and water management.
As for your final point about trains - you might want to read it again and decide if you still feel that those train transport methods were suitable for human use, regardless of the end destination or the nationality of the users.
2) The Dartford Tunnel isn't busy due to immigrants. It is a frustratingly poorly designed piece of highway engineering and the lorries are hardly representative of long-term migrants. Yes you get plenty of EU plates going through there but obviously if they are EU plates then they are only staying long enough to complete their trip then return.
3) You seem to be bogged down with this belief that the Nazis were deporting foreigners on trains. Yes, the trains were not very nice but you seem to be completely missing the central point that the victims were not foreigners in their own countries and they weren't being deported, they were being exterminated.
The parties directly involved are going to have to find a workable solution.
I am against deportations (generally) by any means of transport, because I don't believe it belongs in the modern era, and the practicalities (as I said before, health of the individual, dependents, etc) means that IMO rounding up people who are "not economically active" and moving them to another area (in the UK) or outside the UK is not a solution to the overcrowded UK. I hope that has made my position clear.
Your point about EU migrants passing the entry visa questions is probably correct - and when we think we have enough migrant workers here - we can stop issuing visas, so we would not be "admitting more or less the same number of EU migrants" unless UK wanted to.
Reciprocal health care - yep, I'm up for that, let's hope the negotiators have it on their list.
Tunnel - The point isn't about WHO is using the tunnel, it's about how many people it has to service. The answer is too many - because there are too many people (of all shapes and sizes) in the UK.
A point of interest is that when I was a kid - there was just a single bore at Dartford, shared in both directions - and there were often queues then. We have quadrupled the capacity of the crossing and there are still queues - shall we build another 8 lanes going over the river ?
Without control of immigration, we don't know how many lanes we will need in X years time, because we have an open door to tens of millions.
I don't want to get bogged down in WW2, but just for historical accuracy, the Nazis put millions of German people in concentration camps and killed tens of thousands of them. So let's just leave that stuff aside from now on as it is not central to the discussion.
2) your reasons opposing deportation are flimsy and not grounded in reason. Deportation is the only way to make sure those who have overstayed their welcome leave the country. Unless you wish to destroy our tourism industry by enacting the same checks on short term migrants as you propose on long term then without a hugely expensive homeland security constantly monitoring all tourists then no matter how good pre-border crossing checks are, they are meaningless unless we can enforce it post-crossing.
3) I cannot see any government of any stripe introducing visas for EU workers. There is no political will for it, plus we are heavily reliant on skilled labour from the EU so all pre-border visas and checks would do would massively increase the admin and cost of something which already works perfectly well.
4) you are simply wrong that 'there are too many people' in the country based on the fact the tunnel area is poorly designed. Parts of the UK are overpopulated and that is the reason why the tunnel is so busy because of the surrounding area, but it is mostly because of how poorly designed it is. Whilst the tunnel is usually too busy, the bridge is often fine to cross even when the tunnel is jammed, because the area preceding the bridge is much more conducive to correct traffic flow.
Normally the government would at least, when pursuing a policy, be able to state why it is doing it and what benefits it will bring. They have done neither. The referendum result isn't in of itself a reason to pursue Brexit, it is only a reason why Parliament should discuss it in the first place.
Didn't Boris once call out Farage for claiming immigration was the reason he rocked up late for a meeting or something?
In summary:
Fiiish complains (rightly) about delays at the crossing
VP says too many people in the country, everywhere is busy
Fiiish says lorries with foreign number plates will go back so don't blame them
VP says I don't blame them, it's nothing to do with number plates - just too many people in total.
Fiiish says, there are not too many people, it's just poorly designed on the Kent side.
IMO there are many indications of why the UK is overpopulated, but unless Remain voters open their eyes to the reasons behind the leave vote, then we will go round in circles forever.
Personally, if the EU was to give UK a method of controlling permanent EU migration - even if it was just for a temporary period, then I would lobby to stay in the EU. This is because I have looked into the reasons why folk voted remain and understand many of their concerns. All we need now, is vice-versa.
"Boris Johnson: Nigel Farage's decision to blame M4 traffic on immigration is like 'effluent' and 'sewage'..."
telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/11279637/Boris-Johnson-Nigel-Farages-decision-to-blame-M4-traffic-on-immigration-is-like-effluent-and-sewage.html
For once Boris might be on the money...
Why am I so confident? Because it's the will of the people. So we have to get on with it.
That's about it though. Nothing else I have heard, read or imagined comes close to a solution that allows for the free movement of people and goods (as is required in Ireland) and the restricted movement of people and goods (as is required of a country that's outside the EU. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
But, on the other hand, it's the will of the people and we have to get on with it. So it'll all be alright in the end. Won't it?
Brexit: Voters would favour Remain in second referendum, finds poll:
Never thought i would end up quoting Thatcher to make a point...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42723401
Cash and kids for a loan of a bit of cloth. ;-)