Should there be a second referendum?

Mickyfinn ...what's wrong with the rest of the so called EU countries surly they can for full ambitions by staying in the EU countries.   ...why come to the UK .

Yes Mr Finn, but why the UK. Why will they risk their lives to get from Calais to the UK uninvited and unwanted.

“The alternatives simply bring uncertainty, collapse of foreign investment and enormous difficulties to Britain for a generation or more.”

Is this why the French have completed a purchase of a majority stake in Gatwick airport?

Believe me IF the financial gurus feared a meltdown coming it would have been well anticipated.

But NO growth in the U.K. recovery far out paced EU immediately after the Crash and many such as Italy are just showing signs of positive growth.

You are soooo short term Micky.

Take a look at Euro £ on a 10 year chart.

Why did man walk out of Africa? 

A. To cultivate, propagate & trade with an uncrowded world.

Why did Europeans risk life and limb to develop the west of America?.

A. Gold, adventure & work.

Why did the Windrush generation respond to an invitation to migrate to the UK.

A. Offers of work in a Country that had lost thousands of young men after fighting 2 wars and the end to slave run plantations in the Caribbean.

Of course there are always good reasons for economic migrants and asylum seekers fleeing from persecution.

The U.K. has indeed accepted and integrated many nations and cultures into our ranks, some may argue,too readily, but we are one of the most culturally and nationality diverse Countries in Europe, but a NET migration, NOT all from EU of around 300k per year ever since Mr Blair decided to Open our Borders eventually becomes unsustainable, as schools, hospitals, infrastructure etc. Cannot be provided or trained quickly enough especially where planning development is severely restricted due to the pressures on our countryside.

Only German has had a net migration figure approaching the U.K. and has land to spare to build and grow its economy.

Everywhere else has major employment problems and perhaps we are more generous with our benefits than others but this was supposed to encourage Freedom of Movement to work and contribute in a EU country.

I believe a large proportion of the 52% may well have voted to restore sensible controls of labour.

I accept the need for illegal immigration controls. So does the EU having recently beefed up their external border forces, especially in Spain and Italy. Every European country has a problem with illegal migration it is not just Britain. Over 30,000 illegal migrants entered Spain this year alone, most by sea from North Africa.

Legal immigration is a positive for any country provided it is sustainable. In a recent survey in The Economist almost all contributors agreed immigration benefited a country's economy enormously. To believe Britain is being targeted in isolation is not correct. Britain is very fortunate in having a natural sea border yet still many illegal migrants slip through. The numbers are minor in comparison to Spain for example. However as usual the British media make the most of it.

Statements recently by officials accept the UK sea border is poorly policed. There has been lack of investment in the border force and too many agencies involved. Currently there is only one patrol boat operational in the English Channel. The other one is on load to Spain.

Responsibility for lack of controls is a national government issue since Britain is not part of the Schengen Zone. Leaving the EU will make not one jot of difference. It may marginally discourage EU migrants from working in Britain the weak currency is also another factor. Who or what is going to replace that economic need for labour in Britain post Brexit?

Wouldn't be that bad if it was like Spain 30,000 this year, the UK's is close to 70,000 and rising, but of course to someone who doesen't live in the UK they wouldn't know this because they dont see the problems it brings.

We here in the UK dont live in Disney World, to us it's the real world.

It’s a bit of a rum do when Mickyfinn’s mates are boating them over with a free pack lunch then shouting ‘’there yours now’’ just because we’re leaving and it’s bye bye the 39 billion squid.

What is the EU currently doing to tackle illegal migration as a whole and what is their definition of illegal migration?

Do EU countries have a standardised statistical basis on how to present data for further analysis?

Does the EU analyse by country for any given year how many migrants ( as opposed to illegal immigrants) are claiming benefits and what percentage of a country’s population this makes, how many are in work, how many are studying, how much they are contributing as a net figure to a country’s economy, if there are major shortfalls in infrastructure to accommodate the flows, etc. How can you plan and effect strategies going forward if you have no standardised means of collecting data in this regard?

In other words how are the EU effectively monitoring their free movement policies and illegal migration so as to adequately respond to growing concerns across Europe?

To ignore such major implications without any adequate structure in place, without  any effective trusted monitoring system or strategy to prevent this further undermining cohesion within Europe, would appear as a dereliction of duty would it not?

Its all very well quoting ideological aspirations but without effective structures in place at EU level to monitor and flexibly manage  their policies, policies that inhibit or severely restrict countries control,  does a grave disservice to those countries that have evolved good cohesive structures over many years, such countries as the UK whose citizens have prided themselves on tolerance and inclusion.

What are you going on about? This is and has been fully monitored for years. Legal migrants arrive by aeroplane or train with all their documents. Illegal immigrants swim ashore with minimum baggage, no passport or ID, there is a man on the beach with a clicker counting them.

Bottom line, the EU has totally underestimated and mismanaged the impact of free movement in particular it’s impact on cohesion across Europe.

It also appears to have little strategy on how to tackle illegal immigration across Europe.

In other words it has allowed chaos and growing disillusionment to take hold.

If only it were that simple.

Ads is correct, no one has an effective methodology for exact numbers of migrants and or asylum seekers in the EU.

One thing that the U.K. Health Service will never do is turn away a sick person turning up at a doctors surgery or A&E with or without valid proof of entitlement to healthcare.

This could be wrong in some people’s eyes or the human thing to do in others eyes.

Whatever your opinion, not one country in the EU has ever foreseen or planned for this recent mass migration for many reasons and understandably the residents of the affected countries are showing concern and at times anger and resentment.

12 Far Right representatives elected to the Andulucia Council recently fir the first time since Franco.

The minority Socialist ruling party in Spain is under enormous pressure to act.

There are NO easy answers but the EU is guilty of pushing forward its Federalist doctrine at the expense of jobs and local economies and ignoring this very real problem.

A big thank you ads, brief, accurate and straight to the point. A breath of fresh air from you, keep it up please.

Hugh-man- There are NO easy answers but the EU is guilty of pushing forward its Federalist doctrine at the expense of jobs and local economies and ignoring this very real problem.

I agree there are no easy answers to illegal migration. However that's not anything whatever to do with the EU or its imagined federalism. J.C.Juncker has consistently denied that there exists any desire to move the EU towards federalism. Closer integration by consent is not the same thing as the creation of a federal state.

Illegal immigration is caused by military conflict, persecution of minorities and a desire for economic betterment. (personal ambition) It involves enormous personal risk to individuals their lives, their well-being, their financial resources and their familes.

Yes Micky and Europe is seeing the brunt of economic and political immigration.

The EU needs to talk with sovereign nations to consider a way to deal with it before the Far Right does the job for them.

Immigrants are using Europe as a staging post for onward transference to wherever the gangs will take them or whwerever the immgrants feel will benefit them most.

Bribing Turkey with vague promises to join the EU is house millions in refugee camps is NOT a practical solution.

Dont you think the EU would be well advised to contemplate the immediate problems on their doorstep and listen to what voters have been trying to tell them for some time, culminating in a UK In Out referndum.

As Ads has oft stated, their intransigence and unwillingness to veer from their chosen direction is Empire Like in its respect for its people. Im sure May 19 will see a big change to that but sadly it comes too late to offer the changes that Cameron and many others thought should be considered some time ago.

Is it the bureacrats with their nice lifestyles and pensions, unanswerable to the voters who call the shots or is it elected EU politicians?

Immigration legal or not like many other things has zero impact on the lives of those in power. They live in their own comfort zone isolated from the real world of the commoners. It’s a case of I’m alright jack pass the gin and tonic

Relatively easier to resolve through national voting mechanisms however !

That is absolutely true if you can fight your way through all the lies, deceit and bribery. There is no level a politician of any party or side will not stoop to. Perhaps that is why you only get half a turnout, the other half throw the towel in years ago.

I have said this before but I'll repeat it again. The EU has a set of core principals it will never change or weaken just to suit one member. It's a little like Catholic faith.  Core values cannot be broken otherwise the purpose and object of the entire project becomes worthless. Its not intransigence, although i understand why its often seen like that.

If any member really cannot accept these core values then it's preferable they leave. I don't want that to happen. Everyone loses something.  The UK the most of all. Leaving will not change immigration levels. To do that you need to remove the fundamental causes although the expected economic hardships coming down the road may do that for the UK and make it a less attractive destination.  I dont think anyone is prepared for what is about to take place from 2019 onwards unless there's a deal.

Surely, even you can see that an ability to listen to your electorate is a sensible approach to governing the people.

Its doing the Catholic Church a lot of good as well, isn’t it?intransigence.

Fact, one member has been permitted a one oerson one vote referendum on these core principles.

Can you not see a growing unrest all over EU nations for this dogmatic approach to “its principles”

Intransigence 

noun

1. refusal to change one's views or to agree about something.

   "in the face of government intransigence, he resigned in disgust

So it’s all about the 2016 referendum, isn’t it? MPs are being asked to approve a huge change for our country in 2019 that they would never have dreamed of touching, were it not for a referendum in 2016. Fair enough, but be honest about it: we’re doing it because the voters asked us to. We do not, however, believe the voters reached the right decision.

Why does this era have such difficulty in saying that last sentence? Surely the whole idea of representative rather than “direct” democracy is to provide counterbalance against a sometimes faulty popular judgment.

Everybody knows that the people can sometimes reach the wrong conclusion because we know that we ourselves sometimes do so. Who doubts that popular opinion in the 1930s was wrong to favour appeasing Germany? Who doubts that in the 1950s the public were wrong to cheer on politicians towards the Suez debacle? The public, for a while, have been wrong about many great issues: slavery, hanging, flogging, the imprisonment of homosexuals. So if you believe in democracy you should believe in so much that must come with it: persuasion; a little foot-dragging; re-thinking; give and take on both sides. Politics negotiates with popular opinion: it doesn’t just take dictation.

Mathew Parris. The Times Newspaper 29 December.