Lets start at the beginning. What constitutes the completion of Brexit ?

[LurkingHusband]

Not as daft a question as it seems, given the track record of successive UK government failing to declare in advance what a successful project conclusion looks like.

So, what criteria should be used to determine when we have completed Brexit ? Repeal of the 1972 ECA ? Article 50 + 2 years ? Or (my feeling) "never" ?

Yes. Because leaving the EU won't have much effect on immigration (unless we commit economic suicide).

So, what is Brexit? Ummm....

So, what is Brexit? Ummm....

And we're back to the beginning again ...

Here's another thing to throw into the mix ... how will David Davies convince the two ladies at MrsLHs hair salon that Brexit has happened, when they are convinced that we have already ended FOM, and that the council has already gone around advising the that they need to start to plan going back home now ?

(MrsLH returned saying it was one time she was pleased nobody bothers speaking to people in wheelchairs).

Nigel Evans MP was talking today on radio (as a serious realistic desirable objective he endorsed) about getting immigration down to 10s of thousands. That means cutting current net migration by 75%. Medical staff, engineers, scientists, refugees, somebody's husband, child or mother, Who shall we turn away? What's the Plan, guys.

Nigel Evans MP was talking today on radio (as a serious realistic desirable objective he endorsed) about getting immigration down to 10s of thousands

Intelligence is not a qualification for parliament.

The question all Brexiteers should be asking is what is going to change to stop the non-EU immigration that couldn't have been changed in the past 40 years.

Of course a proportion of Brexiteers don't appreciate the distinction, so it's a moot point.

So if we drag our feet won't the rabble electorate just vote UKIP at the next election in the expectation that they'll just stick two fingers up at the EU and complete the withdrawal at any cost?

This is partly what i have been thinking as a EEA free movement deal trickles into public consciousness. UKIP will be happy to just decree its terms or walk away to try the WTO .

Industry wont pay to skill up people unless the government is going to start offering lots of training bursaries.

Wont we just end up fast tracking non EU visas as it will be even easier to prove that there is not the UK capacity, there wound't have been a job application to that post etc.

We need a certain number of people to be paying tax for the system to work, and we need more people or investment for this to go up.

D Davis seems to regard it as triggering the art 50 before the end of the year and 12-24 months after that all is fine and dandy with bilateral trade deals already negotiated and falling at their feet.

"The appointment of David Davis as Minister for Brexit, and Liam Fox as trade secretary suggests May is willing to go for a hard Brexit, where the UK does not remain in the single market - as the new chancellor, Philip Hammond, has also said - and removes itself quickly from the EU. But the civil service may feel the Davis blueprint recently published on Conservative Home is optimistic. In essence he argues article 50 should be triggered by the end of the year and predicts the UK could sign bilateral trade deals with a set of markets larger than the single market within 12 to 24 months.

Davis also suggests the EU will act rationally and grant the UK tariff free access to the EU single market since it is in their self-interest to do so. If the EU slaps on tariffs, the UK could do the same and use the funds to invest in industry."

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/14/whats-the-best-brexit-theresa-may-could-get-for-britain

There you go, it will be straight forward. And they should definitely fall on their swords if it not as they say. They campaigned on this and are now in power to achieve it. It is entirely in their hands.

I'm just wondering how the tariffs on EU goods will be invested in industry when there is so much lining up to replace EU funding. The tariffs on UK goods to EU will roughly eat the 10billion given now. Andrew Neil did this on his show with Farage. So there will be nought spare from the word go.

"Wont we just end up fast tracking non EU visas as it will be even easier to prove that there is not the UK capacity, there wound't have been a job application to that post etc. "

This was part of the campaign for brexit. They said it would be easier to bring in people from out side the EU. Especially the Commonwealth. They targeted this message at voters from the Commonwealth.

Ah so same level of immigration, just a different place?
And people from the commonwealth aren't immigrants because.... They are old colonies (very important to strengthen the idea that the UK still has an empire and is as powerful as it was then I suppose?).
But people from the EU are all awful immigrants that only want to come here to abuse the system....
Interesting ideas...

Especially when you are hoping that the EU will keep the doors open. What is the uk going to bring to the table fur the EU exactly? The U.K. Only represent 7% of European e ports after all

Farage refers to this loose general promise of more Commonwealth immigration instead of EU at 13.37. I don't think they are being anything other than disingenuous in their hint of promises. He doesn't answer her question and just makes sweeping statements without substance. He is not elected to make any of these decisions in any event.

As in
NF "Here's why, the vast majority ...bang,bang."

Where is the basis for that?

NF "you're not listening to me are you? Here's why, Sweeping statement without basis, bang, bang." QED, see.

No further illustration of any basis for statement.

Isn't the aim to cut immigration to 10's of thousands?

There is probably a tonne more of these references, about the Commonwealth citizens finding it easier to get in after a Brexit ,from people in power, but I'm not going to trawl.

Immigration in the 10s of thousands doesn't sound like an unreasonable goal. Britain is a fairly small island. It is not like we need immigrants to "subdue a continent" a la the colonisation of Australia or North America.

Setting society up like a big Ponzi scheme, where we need more and more incomers to support so many of the natives not working or not able to work doesn't sound like a sustainable plan.

Immigration in the 10s of thousands doesn't sound like an unreasonable goal.

I repeat - why hasn't it happened then ? Subtract EU migration from total migration (which is the bit we have always been in control of) and you could have any number you liked from zero up.

So, I ask again : why is it now possible to reduce non-EU immigration.

Oh, and for posterity, I predict it will never happen.

Roughly speaking, net migration recently has been 180k EU & 180k non-EU.

Ban all EU people from entering, that's simple enough. Still 180k non-EU, 80k+ too many.

Maybe half of those non-EU are students. Simple answer = massage the numbers: move students out of the net migration calculation since most go back to country of origin after receiving degree.

But if the student number total can't be manipulated, then ban the students (which means massive income drop for universities) --

or ban all the other non-EU incomers: the scientists, engineers, Gurkas, NHS workers, relatives of UK citizens, refugees, etc.

And finally

Easy enough to reduce net migration on two conditions:

• trash the economy: reduces the attractiveness of the UK as a destination and increases emigration (look at the financial crisis impact on net migration)

• cut benefits to pensioners; working age migrants will be required to fund their retirements

What will bebtheceffrct of reducing immigration on the country then?
I though that the only reason our population is increasing is THANKS to immigration (and they higher natality rate).
No immigration means a negative growth like in Germany, and this is bad for the country/economy/pension etc etc
That's Germany was quite happy to welcome so many Syrian refugees btw

That's wo talking about the lack of certain skills or that people refuse to go and live in some areas of the country, hence companies having to rely of 'immigrants' to fill the jobs