French border warning: is it just blackmail?

[WinnieTheW0rm]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35712463

The French Finance minister has said that if UK votes to leave, the French will end border controls at Calais and allow people to leave France unchecked.

Are his comments representative of French governmental thinking?

[SpringingIntoAction]

Thistledew

I said this

"British living in many EU countries already have to apply for residence after set periods of time."

I have posted British Government documents that support that statement.

I had no wish to debate the finer points of permissible residency for different categories of EU/non-EU residents.

The fact remains that it is against international law to arbitrarily expel a specific sector of your resident population and the question remains as to whether any country would do so.

The problem we face is that current levels of immigration into the UK are, according to Cameron and May "unsustainable".

[SpringingIntoAction]

I've posted this to allow people to decide for themselves whether they think that a post-Brexit expulsion of that section of the habitually resident population that comprises non-EU citizens would constitute a breach of Article 7. The legal opinion I've read suggests it would.


legal.un.org/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm

[Thistledew]

Article 7(2)(d) ""Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law".

The point is that once we exit the EU, then other EU citizens residing in the UK, or British citizens residing elsewhere in Europe will no longer be lawfully present in their host state. As I explained above, their right of residence comes not from a grant of permission by the sovereign state, but by operation of laws which apply as a result of the UK being in the EU. If the UK is no longer in the EU, those laws no longer apply. Hence the rights of residence will cease to exist and the people affected will no longer be lawfully present. They do not need to be revoked individually by the sovereign state. Each individual will have to seek and be granted a right of residence by the sovereign state. There will therefore be nothing under the Rome Statute to render their expulsion unlawful.

If you care to link to the legal opinion you have read, I'm happy to consider the arguments it presents, but it is my proessional legal opinion that the above interpretation is correct.

[SpringingIntoAction]

It depends on whether the 'lawfully resident' retains those previous rights post-BREXIT or whether the law is applied literally. That would be a matter for each country to decide based on their determination of the benefits or otherwise of hosting that sector of their population. But I would certainly expect a legal challenge if the did move to expel en masse.

[RockUnit]

rockunit - can you put a price on peace across Europe? fundamentally the core vision for Europe - that through increasing peace, prosperity we would escape the cycle of war.

That's what Juncker would have you believe. Recently he said "Whoever does not believe in Europe, whoever doubts Europe, whoever despairs of Europe, should visit the war cemeteries in Europe."

It's interesting how Juncker refers to "Europe". Supporting Brexit doesn't mean doubting "Europe", it means doubting the EU.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/12184099/Eurosceptics-should-visit-war-graves-says-Jean-Claude-Juncker.html

Former defence secretary Dr Liam Fox said “The military cemeteries of Europe are testament to the failure of the continent to control extremism in the twentieth century.

“Had Britain not been a free and independent nation, we would have been unable to intervene to protect Europe from the result of its own folly."

[RockUnit]

I'd disagree on your premise that being in the EU = damaging to our democracy

In what way do you think being in the EU is good for our democracy?

[nearlyhellokitty]

Seriously rock - the point was to replace military cemeteries in Europe by interminable council meetings and solidarity to increase prosperity for all. This is the vision. From many leaders. Jean Claude is a relatively recent incomer on that scene. And there has been peace since 1945 amongst EU members, let's not forget that war is not far away from our eastern borders right now,

And I don't know what Liam fox is on about - I can't see how that would apply in any case. If we had a situation where a EU Ms was invading lots of other EU MS with tanks then we'd all be fucked anyways.

Democracy - well we have a whole additional directly elected parliament that can discuss with other directly elected representatives from across Europe. Proportionally elected ones. So certainly additional democracy going on :-) and if you're going to go into the unelected commission line - commissioners are appointed by each govt, they generally follow mandates agreed by heads of European States, along side a long process of stakeholder consult before anything is proposed and then majority of stuff then has to be agreed by the council (ie our government ) and the parliament. Plus our national MPs are supposed to scrutinise the legislation before the MS take a position.

[SpringingIntoAction]

Interesting article in The Independent by a former Liberal MP and former Europhile saying he will vote LEAVE and that the EU is not democratic.

When even Liberals start recommending LEAVE something has gone seriously wrong with the EU

www.independent.co.uk/voices/think-that-if-you-are-liberal-you-should-vote-to-stay-in-the-eu-think-again-a6916921.html

[RockUnit]

The EU doesn't seem to have increased prosperity, unless I'm missing something? I just think of austerity, the debt crisis in Greece (and the rise of the far right), the euro...

Boris Johnson has warned in the Telegraph here about the Five Presidents Report of June 2015.

He says that "Euro chiefs" ... "want to prop up the euro by creating an all-out economic government of Europe."

"They want a euro-area treasury, with further pooling of tax and budgetary policy. They want to harmonise insolvency law, company law, property rights, social security systems – and there is no way the UK can be unaffected by this process. As the Five Presidents put it: “Much can be already achieved through a deepening of the Single Market, which is important for all 28 EU member states.” So even though Britain is out of the euro, there is nothing we can do to stop our friends from using “single market” legislation to push forward centralising measures that will help prop up the euro (or so they imagine), by aligning EU economic, social and fiscal policies."

Later he says

"So-called “Single Market” measures affect us as much as they affect the eurozone – and the question therefore is what we mean by “Single Market”. The answer is a mystery – because the single market has changed beyond recognition."

The Five Presidents Report even described the euro as "a successful and stable currency".

Lord Mervyn King, former governor of the Bank of England, has said

"Put bluntly, monetary union has created a conflict between a centralised elite on the one hand, and the forces of democracy at the national level on the other."

and as quoted in the Telegraph Euro depression is 'deliberate' EU choice, says former Bank of England chief

"In the euro area, the countries in the periphery have nothing at all to offset austerity. They are simply being asked to cut total spending without any form of demand to compensate. I think that is a serious problem.

"I never imagined that we would ever again in an industrialised country have a depression deeper than the United States experienced in the 1930s and that's what's happened in Greece.

"It is appalling and it has happened almost as a deliberate act of policy which makes it even worse".

[RockUnit]

In this article Meet the Next President of the European Commission on the Gatestone Institute website Juncker is quoted as saying

"When it becomes serious, you have to lie."

"We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back."

"Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to bring attention to that?"

"I am for secret, dark debates."

[Chalalala]

When even Liberals start recommending LEAVE something has gone seriously wrong with the EU

See this sort of reasoning cuts both ways, because that's the way I feel about many conservatives, including Cameron, who are instinctive eurosceptics yet want the UK to stay in the EU.

I think the problem with debates about big issues like this is that most people have a "gut feeling" first, and then listen more favourably to the arguments that fits their gut feeling. It's a well-known mechanism in cognitive psychology, pre-existing beliefs influence our assessment of arguments. (not a psychologist at all btw!)

I'll be honest, that's probably what I tend to do. I feel European, I believe in the idea of the project. Do I look at pro- and anti-Brexit arguments in an equally fair frame of mind? Probably not...

[Mistigri]

When even Liberals start recommending LEAVE

I just don't think this splits down party lines at all. For eg, here's a blog written by the liberal Financial Times and independent law writer David Allen Green. He is a small l liberal of the old school (as am I), and a Eurosceptic (which I am not) - albeit neutral about this referendum because he thinks the current UK government is at least as illiberal as the EU.

jackofkent.com/2016/02/being-neutral-about-brexit/

I don't think euroscepticism is confined to any particular party, even though it is magnified at either end of the political spectrum, because what drives people to be eurosceptics varies from the simple (Romanians nicking our jobs and having the temerity to talk their language on the train) to the complex (difficult arguments about what should be the limits of both the state and supranational bodies).

[Mistigri]

PS it's worth saying that lawyers can probably afford to be neutral or sceptical, as they will likely be the main short term financial beneficiaries of a brexit ... And that's not meant to be snarky because personal interest is a motivating factor for most of us (I stand to lose twice over from a brexit as both my job and my immigration status are partially dependent on the existence of the EU).

[nearlyhellokitty]

Rock - I think it can certainly be argued that the EU has led to greater prosperity overall. See this FT article which examines a lot of different arguments.

www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/202a60c0-cfd8-11e5-831d-09f7778e7377.html#axzz42KOeBH8Y

"Warwick University’s Prof Crafts says no one can know exactly how much the EU directly benefited Britain, but a 10 per cent rise in prosperity is a reasonable estimate. “That dominates any reasonable idea of what the membership fee is,” he concludes. He cautions there is little evidence that joining the bloc permanently increased Britain’s growth rate, since the EU primarily boosted the economy in the 1970s and 1990s. But leaving the union could jeopardise the UK’s gains from increased openness and competition — the contributions economists overwhelmingly say the EU has made to British prosperity.
Even economists backing Brexit rarely argue that the EU has had an overall negative effect. Arbuthnot Securities’ Ms Lea describes the bloc’s economic impact as “fairly negligible”. Patrick Minford, long one of the most outspoken economists backing Brexit, said in late February that EU membership had benefited the British economy by initially freeing trade.

Speaking in his factory, Nifco UK’s Mr Matthews says that during his 28 years in the car parts business, Britain’s membership has made it dramatically easier to sell products across borders while pushing companies to become more productive. That is the EU effect that has transformed not just one car-parts manufacturer in Teesside but the UK economy as a whole.

It is a modern-day fact of economic life that Mr Matthews thinks the country should not turn its back on. He wonders why Britain would even contemplate leaving the EU. “You have enough challenges in business,” he says. “Why would you put yourself in a more difficult position?” One of the intriguing questions that will be answered on June 23 is whether such arguments — overwhelmingly backed by economists — will win the day."

NB Juncker is one EU personality and not the sum of all its democracy. There is a lot of information available on what goes on in the EU. In fact so much it's difficult to deal with.

[nearlyhellokitty]

Rock - on prosperity - this is an old link/ by the EU but this is the idea behind increased prosperity. I am out of time now to look for other other background but if I see something will post.

www.eubusiness.com/topics/sme/eu-single-market-guide/

1. Increased prosperity: over the last 15 years the Single Market has increased the EU's prosperity by 2.15% of GDP. In 2006 alone this meant an overall increase of EUR 240 billion - or EUR 518 for every EU citizen - compared to a situation without the Single Market.
   

1. More jobs: 2.75 million extra jobs have been created over the period 1992-2006 as a result of the Single Market.
   

1. Easier to travel and shop: EU citizens can travel across most of the EU without carrying a passport and without being stopped for checks at borders. Shoppers have full consumer rights when shopping outside their country and there are no limits on what they can buy and take with them for personal use.
   

1. More opportunities to live, work and study abroad: more than 15 million EU citizens have moved to other EU countries to work or to enjoy their retirement, benefiting from the transferability of social benefit, while 1.5 million young people have completed part of their studies in another Member State with the help of the Erasmus programme.
   

1. Wider choice of products and services: 73% of EU citizens think the Single Market has contributed positively to the range of products on offer, while the establishment of common standards has led to safer and environmentally friendlier products, such as food, cars and medicines.
   

1. Lower prices: the opening up of national markets and the resultant increase in competition has driven down prices of, for example, internet access, air travel and telephone calls (the latter having been reduced on average by 40% over the period 2000-2006).
   

1. Less red tape: rather than adding to red tape, Single Market rules often replace a large number of complex and different national laws with a single framework, reducing bureaucracy for citizens, and compliance costs for businesses, who pass those savings on to consumers. It has also become easier to start or buy a business: the average cost for setting up a new company in the former EU-15 has fallen from EUR 813 in 2002 to EUR 554 in 2007, and the time needed to register a company administratively was reduced from 24 days in 2002 to about 12 days today. But more progress is needed.
   

1. Huge potential market: any business in the EU automatically has close to 500 million potential customers on its doorstep. This allows larger businesses to benefit from enormous economies of scale, while new markets have been opened up to small- and medium-sized businesses which previously would have been dissuaded from exporting by the cost and hassle.
   

1. Much easier to do business: trade within the EU has risen by 30% since 1992. The absence of border bureaucracy has cut delivery times and reduced costs. Before the frontiers came down, the tax system alone required 60 million customs clearance documents annually: these are no longer needed.
   

10. Better value for taxpayers: as a result of more open and competitive public procurement rules, governments have more money to spend on priorities such as health and education. For example, the price of railway rolling stock has dropped, with studies pointing at savings from 10% to 30%.

[SpringingIntoAction]

There is not one single ‘benefit’ (and I dispute that many are actually benefits) listed above that would stop me voting LEAVE and which outweighs the fact that:

1. We no longer have supreme authority over laws that exist in our country
   
   
2. We no longer have control over who is permitted to live in the UK as that right now extends to all EU citizens
   
   
3. We no longer have the ability to trade freely with the other 168 countries of the world that are not members of the EU. That power has been taken from us by our EU membership
   
   
4. We no longer have the right to set all our own tax rates or to decide at what rates items should be taxed. We are mandated to apply VAT within a range specified by the EU. We cannot even exempt t Tampax from VAT as the EU would have to agree this.
   
   
5. The UK does not have sufficient housing, schools and medical facilities to cope with a population that is increasing by 325,000 additional people each year of which around roughly 200,000 are migrants into the UK from other EU member countries
   
   
6. The NHS paid £647 million to European countries last year, but received only £49 million in return. The NHS cannot afford to provide services to all EU citizens seeking treatment in the UK and fail to recoup these costs in full. This is money that is not available to provide treatment to those who have paid into the system for decades.
   
   
7. The NHS is now catering for an additional 200,000 plus EU migrants each year that services were not designed to support6) The increased EU migrant population has increased housing costs. It has increased the costs of houses and rent, through increased demand
   
   
8. The increased EU migrant population has provided increased availability of cheap labour, which has depressed wages at a time when house prices and rents are increasing
   
   
9. TTIP is a US/EU deal that will open up sectors of the UK public services to privatisation. The NHS is not exempted. If we stay in the EU our NHS will almost certainly be open to competition from the private sector.
   
   
10. We will eventually have to permit free movement, including the right to live in the EU and use UK services to the populations of Turkey, Albania, Macedonia, Albania, Serbia and Montenegro, all of whom are in negotiations to join the EU.
    
    
11. Any influence we have in the EU will be eroded in the future as these new countries join and we are outvoted by QMV.
    
    
12. Regardless of Cameron's Special Status, the UK is still on the path to ever closer political union as every piece of legislation that is initiated in Brussels and adopted by the UK is another step on that path to political union.
    
    
13. if we vote REMAIN it will be taken by the EU as a vote of confidence in the European Experiment and a Green light to force us into closer union and to persuade us to adopt the Euro. After all, they will say, you voted to stay IN so why would you not want to?
    
    
    So I'm LEAVE