What do you think of BREXIT?

[Ahmed Bin S]

Campbell Ritchie wrote:

Ahmed Bin S wrote:. . . Brexit won because the white working class have constantly been told over the past 20 years that they are poor because of immigrants. . . .

Even though that is a lie; I am quite sure that immigration did not cause any such poverty.

I also expect immigration will continue with only slight changes.

Exactly. Influx of Eastern Europeans has resulted in a slight reduction in wages, however, that isn't the reason for poverty at all. Unfortunately when the only papers you read are The Sun and Daily Star, you will be led to believe the immigrants are to blame for your woes.

[Ahmed Bin S]

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:

3) Scotland will not be going for a referendum soon

How do you define soon? The article Stevens linked to suggests it might happen within two years. Which would make sense. The circumstances under which they voted last time changed.

That's exactly what I am talking about, the media sensationalising things.

Yes, the SNP will take an aggressive tone, and say all sorts of things, but the reality is they will want to take their time because they cannot risk losing again. Remember, more Scots voted to remain part of the UK than they voted to remain as part of the EU, so it is complex. Add to this that their economy relies on oil production, and the price of oil has plummeted since the last referendum, it will therefore be very risky to push for a referendum pretty soon.

[Ahmed Bin S]

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:Per the New York Times:

Google reported a spike in searches for “What happens if we leave the E.U.?” And the question “What is the E.U.?” was the second most popular question in Britain.

Really? People didn't want to know this *before* voting? Or is the the 30% who didn't vote who now have an interest in the topic?

Oh, we have our fair share of thick people. Some people voted Brexit and they didn't think we would leave and are now regretting it today.

[Campbell Ritchie]

Ahmed Bin S wrote:. . . when the only papers you read are The Sun and Daily Star, . . .

The Daily Mail and Daily Express are far worse.

[Joe Bishara]

Ahmed Bin S wrote:...you cannot say Brussels imposed Freedom of Movement on the UK, when the UK signed up for the EEC.

Yes Britain signed up for it and one of the reasons for BREXIT is that many are not happy with it. Britain can now take control of its borders. Britain can now decide who can come in and who can't in a way that doesn't put a strain on public services. Britain may adopt a points-based system which gives priority to skills in demand. Nevertheless, I suspect that it won't be so easy to control immigration.

[Ahmed Bin S]

Campbell Ritchie wrote:

Ahmed Bin S wrote:. . . when the only papers you read are The Sun and Daily Star, . . .

The Daily Mail and Daily Express are far worse.

I agree, but those are middle class papers, which loathe the working class as much as the immigrants, and the working class rarely read them.

[Ahmed Bin S]

Joe Bishara wrote:

Ahmed Bin S wrote:...you cannot say Brussels imposed Freedom of Movement on the UK, when the UK signed up for the EEC.

Yes Britain signed up for it and one of the reasons for BREXIT is that many are not happy with it. Britain can now take control of its borders. Britain can now decide who can come in and who can't in a way that doesn't put a strain on public services. Britain may adopt a points-based system which gives priority to skills in demand. Nevertheless, I suspect that it won't be so easy to control immigration.

Yes, so as I said - it isn't mainly to do with rules being made in Brussels, but immigration.

We in Britain already have control of our borders, I have no idea why you think we don't.

[Stevens Miller]

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:Per the New York Times:

Google reported a spike in searches for “What happens if we leave the E.U.?” And the question “What is the E.U.?” was the second most popular question in Britain.

Really? People didn't want to know this *before* voting? Or is the the 30% who didn't vote who now have an interest in the topic?

I'm thinking those queries are from people who voted "Remain," and are wondering how bad their lives are going to get now.

[Joe Bishara]

Ahmed Bin S wrote:We in Britain already have control of our borders...

You might think so. Many won't agree.

[Ahmed Bin S]

Joe Bishara wrote:

Ahmed Bin S wrote:We in Britain already have control of our borders...

You might think so. Many won't agree.

I'm not concerned with what "many" think - many also think CO2 emissions don't harm the environment, it doesn't make them right.

Anyway, here is what an independent body that checks facts states about border control in the UK.

https://fullfact.org/europe/border-security-eu/

As you can see, we do have control of our borders, saying we don't is just another of the many lies that Brexit peddled to scare people.

[Joe Bishara]

Ahmed Bin S wrote:...it isn't mainly to do with rules being made in Brussels, but immigration

You can't separate Brussels from the issue of EU immigration. One of the reasons for BREXIT is the issue EU immigration and the strain it puts on public services. Before now, Britain couldn't do anything about EU immigration because one of the conditions for access to the EU single market is free movement, but now Britain can take control of EU immigration. Brussels no longer makes the rules; Britain does.

[Ahmed Bin S]

Joe Bishara wrote:

Ahmed Bin S wrote:...it isn't mainly to do with rules being made in Brussels, but immigration

You can't separate Brussels from the issue of EU immigration. One of the reasons for BREXIT is EU immigration. Before now, Britain couldn't do anything about EU immigration because one of the conditions for access to the EU single market is free movement, but now BREXIT can take control of EU immigration. Brussels no longer makes the rules; Britain does.

You are conflating two different things.

One is laws which Brussels passes which we don't want to follow but have to because the majority voted for it. An example of this would be giving prisoners the right to vote.
However, freedom of movement doesn't fall into this category. We CHOSE to sign up to a treaty which guaranteed freedom of movement. It wasn't imposed upon the British people by Brussels, we CHOSE to sign up for it.

You are also confusing what Brexit will mean, it is entirely possible, even reasonable, that we will remain within the single market, in which case there will still be freedom on movement and thousands and thousands of Poles will still be able to come to the UK, and good for them I say, why shouldn't they have the right to come here and earn their living.

[Joe Bishara]

Ahmed Bin S wrote:You are conflating two different things.

They are not two different things. They are the same thing. The both fall under the category called "EU Law". EU law mandates that EU citizens have the right to travel and work in other EU countries. EU law also covers areas like competition policy, agriculture and taxation. Before BREXIT, EU laws overrode national laws but not any more because Britain is no longer bound by EU laws. Britain is now free to negotiate new terms and conditions for access to the single market which may or may not involve free movement. Britain is now free to seek some kind of controlled movement.

In this document European_Union_law, you will find details about EU laws including:

Freedom of movement for workers

Fiscal and monetary policy

Environmental law

[Ahmed Bin S]

Joe Bishara wrote:

Ahmed Bin S wrote:You are conflating two different things.

They are not two different things. They are the same thing. The both fall under the category called "EU Law". EU law mandates that EU citizens have the right to travel and work in other EU countries. EU law also covers areas like competition policy, agriculture and taxation. Before BREXIT, EU laws overrode national laws but not any more because Britain is no longer bound by EU laws. Britain is now free to negotiate new terms and conditions for access to the single market which may or may not involve free movement. Britain is now free to seek some kind of controlled movement.

In this document European_Union_law, you will find details about EU laws including:

Freedom of movement for workers

Fiscal and monetary policy

Environmental law

Sigh.

Yes, I know they are both EU Laws. But one is an EU Law that was imposed on the British public and they did not choose, and the other is an EU Law that the British public CHOSE! No one in Brussels forced the British public to remain in the EEC in 1975, we CHOSE to stay. Therefore, we CHOSE freedom of movement.

I know Brexiters spin things a lot, but you cannot seriously be trying to claim that Brussels forced freedom of movement on us when we voted to be in the EEC knowing very well that freedom of movement was one of the key principles.

[Joe Bishara]

An EU member does not "choose" to comply with an EU law. An EU member "chooses" to join the EU. When you join the EU, in return for access to the single market, you are obliged to comply with present and future EU laws. Freedom of movement is just one of the many EU laws.

[Ahmed Bin S]

Joe Bishara wrote:An EU member does not "choose" to comply with an EU law. An EU member "chooses" to join the EU. When you join the EU, in return for access to the single market, you are obliged to comply with present and future EU laws.

With all due respect that makes no sense.

When you choose to join the EU, you are choosing to comply with all the laws that are part of the membership. Therefore, when Britain chose to stay as part of the EEC in 1975, Britain chose to comply with freedom of movement. Therefore, it wasn't imposed on Britain by Brussels as Brexiters try to mislead people.

[Ahmed Bin S]

Ahmed Bin S wrote:

Joe Bishara wrote:An EU member does not "choose" to comply with an EU law. An EU member "chooses" to join the EU. When you join the EU, in return for access to the single market, you are obliged to comply with present and future EU laws.

With all due respect that makes no sense.

When you choose to join the EU, you are choosing to comply with all the laws that are part of the membership. Therefore, when Britain chose to stay as part of the EEC in 1975, Britain chose to comply with freedom of movement. Therefore, it wasn't imposed on Britain by Brussels as Brexiters try to mislead people.

And if it still needs clarification:

Say I apply for a Technical Consultant role, and the job description says Consulting and some coding in Java, and I sign for this job.
Say a year later my manager says they will need me to write some code in C++ because they need me to work in another team.

Can I say I was forced to code in C++ without having a say? Yes I can.
Can I say I was forced to code in Java without having a say? Of course I can't, when I signed the contract, I knew coding was part of the job description, and I signed to job contract.

Similarly it is ridiculous to suggest that Brussels forced freedom of movement onto the UK, when the UK actually signed a treaty and they knew freedom of movement was an integral part of it!

[Joe Bishara]

What you're saying makes no sense to me either but let's agree to disagree.

[Ahmed Bin S]

Joe Bishara wrote:What you're saying makes no sense to me either but let's agree to disagree.

Sure, we can do that, you just made two incorrect claims that the Brexit camp have repeatedly made (UK doesn't have control over it's borders and freedom of movement was forced on the British people by Brussels), and as we have non-British people here who don't know much about Brexit and might have believed it, I just had to show your claims are wrong.

Thanks.

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

Ahmed Bin S wrote:

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:

3) Scotland will not be going for a referendum soon

How do you define soon? The article Stevens linked to suggests it might happen within two years. Which would make sense. The circumstances under which they voted last time changed.

That's exactly what I am talking about, the media sensationalising things.

While I agree that the media sensationalizes things in general, in this case the media was reporting a quote by the first minister of Scotland. So if you want to accuse sensationalism, it goes to the first minister.

[Tim Cooke]

I live in Northern Ireland.

Since the Brexit results I've seen a few people around the office in Belfast with Irish Passport application forms on their desk. I guess it would give them the option to travel on a passport from an EU country if they wished.

In NI you can have both a UK and an Irish passport.

[Winston Gutkowski]

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:

3) Scotland will not be going for a referendum soon

How do you define soon?

Not soon enough.

Apologies for my absence but, as you can imagine, I've been digesting (and mourning) the results after three months on the Remain campaign.

The fact is that Scotland can have all the referendums it wants, but it needs the cooperation of Westminster to put them into force; and that's simply not going to happen while the UK is (a) run by the Tories, or (b) in the process of re-writing hundreds, if not thousands, of man-years of legislation. Furthermore, the EU has already said that it won't give Scotland the UK's "seat" in any negotiations for re-entry, even assuming a second independence vote does come about and gets voted for.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives are re-generating like the Borg under a new Queen, and Labour is once again tearing itself apart from the inside in the name of "democracy". Feels like 1983 all over again. Theresa May has already said that she won't call an election, which means that the party that caused this mess to begin with, and was given a "mandate" by 37% of the people that voted in 2015 (just under 25% of the electorate) will have carte blanche to negotiate the terms of Brexit in whatever way they choose (and they won't be good).

So: back to a world of visas and tariffs and points systems and "splendid isolation" and bad French taught in schools. That'll be fun.

At least lawyers and comedy writers will be happy. They've got resources to set them up for the next fifty years.

However, it's done, and it can't be undone - despite revisionist cries to the contrary. My party (the Libs) have even made "re-entry" part of their campaign platform. Get real. Even if we do somehow reverse this referendum, there's no way the EU is going to trust us for at least a generation.

I just hope it's as quick and clinical as possible, and that we can all get on with the future. And in the meantime I'm going to be voting SNP, because I never want Scotland to be in this situation again; and I'm darn proud of the fact that OUR campaign turned out 62% for Remain - beyond even our expectations.

Winston

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

Tim Cooke wrote:In NI you can have both a UK and an Irish passport.

Despite knowing where you live and reading the first sentence of your post, my first thought reading this sentence was "what is NI." Luckily my second thought was "duh"! Does the passport thing mean dual citizenship or is it just a travel document?

Winston Gutkowski wrote:Apologies for my absence but, as you can imagine, I've been digesting (and mourning) the results after three months on the Remain campaign.

Yeah. And more facts are starting to slowly evolve.

Winston Gutkowski wrote:Furthermore, the EU has already said that it won't give Scotland the UK's "seat" in any negotiations for re-entry, even assuming a second independence vote does come about and gets voted for.

Right. They hadn't said that yet when I posed the question. So you (Scotland) are stuck.

Winston Gutkowski wrote:Feels like 1983 all over again.

For those of us not old enough to remember 1983, what would be good to search for to find out what this is in reference to?

Winston Gutkowski wrote:and I'm darn proud of the fact that OUR campaign turned out 62% for Remain - beyond even our expectations.

Congrats! Local campaigning matters even if it doesn't affect the final tally.

[Campbell Ritchie]

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:. . . Does the passport thing mean dual citizenship . . .

Yes, and no. I think this goes back to the days of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which very few people are old enough to remember. Irish people used to be entitled to vote in Great Britain, and even before the EU, it was possible to travel between the two countries without a passport. The Troubles partially put a stop to that; I had to show a passport to go to Belfast by plane, even though it is legally in the same state. It isn't dual citizenship (at least I think not) but allowing some of the privleges of citizenship to each other.
I never knew about poeple in Ulster being allowed Irish passports; maybe that is Dublin asserting some sort of right over the whole of Ireland.

[Tim Cooke]

Campbell Ritchie wrote:it was possible to travel between the two countries without a passport.

That's still true. There's no policed border so you can drive about the whole of the isle of Ireland unhindered.

Campbell Ritchie wrote:I had to show a passport to go to Belfast by plane, even though it is legally in the same state.

How long ago was that? You can travel by plane from Great Britain to Northern Ireland with just photo ID such as your driving licence, as you would require for air travel between any UK airport.

Campbell Ritchie wrote:It isn't dual citizenship (at least I think not) but allowing some of the privleges of citizenship to each other.
I never knew about poeple in Ulster being allowed Irish passports; maybe that is Dublin asserting some sort of right over the whole of Ireland.

It's not a dual citizenship thing. Residents of Northern Ireland can hold a UK and an Irish passport. As far as I know the reverse is not true, residents of the Republic of Ireland cannot hold UK passports.

Campbell Ritchie wrote:United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

Which is now the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

[Winston Gutkowski]

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:For those of us not old enough to remember 1983, what would be good to search for to find out what this is in reference to?

Well, you could look up Michael Foot's bio, or "Liberal-SDP alliance".

What's happening to the Labour party now is not new; it's happened at least twice before: once in the 1930's and again in 1981, when it voted in a old-guard left-winger (at that time Michael Foot) as leader, split, and was then annihiliated in the election of 1983 by a Tory party whose vote actually went down (despite her reputation as the 'Iron Lady', Margaret Thatcher never polled more than 44% of actual voters). Result: 18 years in opposition wilderness.

The echoes with today are amazing, yet no Labour supporter seems to see them: In 2015, following their election defeat, Labour voted in a 66-year old left-wing back-bencher (Jeremy Corbyn) as their leader, pretty much by acclamation (he got 59% of membership votes).

Unfortunately, his performance in the referendum - including refusing to stand on the same platform as other Remain figures - was less than enthusiastic, and he was dubbed "unable to win an election" by a rebellion of his own MPs by a vote of 172-40 in the wake of the Remain defeat. Amazingly, far from accepting this as a huge vote of no-confidence, the membership - backed by an online group called Momentum - see it as a threat to party democracy and seem determined not only to re-elect him, but possibly de-select the 4/5ths of MPs who voted against him.

Whatever happens, it seems that Labour is set for a long period of opposition; and if the party splits (again) possibly even oblivion.

Meanwhile, the Tories are in power and re-aligning to the right, and the rest of us "centrists" have noone to represent us except a Lib-Dem party tainted by association with an unpopular coalition. One of my new friends from the campaign is writing his letter of resignation to the Conservative party as we speak, because he feels they no longer represent him; and I suspect there are a lot of others who feel the same.

Where are the Lockes, and Smiths and Gladstones and Beveridges now? That's what I'd like to know.

Winston

[Campbell Ritchie]

Tim Cooke wrote:. . . How long ago was that? You can travel by plane from Great Britain to Northern Ireland with just photo ID such as your driving licence, as you would require for air travel between any UK airport.

About 14 or 15 years ago; I don't think I had any other photo ID then. I still had the old paper driving licence, which didn't have a photo on. I don't remember having to show ID when I could fly to Heathrow; that flight no longer runs.

Campbell Ritchie wrote:United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

Which is now the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

As I said, there are very few people old enough to remember the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; it changed in the 1920s.

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

Winston Gutkowski wrote:Well, you could look up Michael Foot's bio, or "Liberal-SDP alliance".

Thank you. That went far better than searching for "1983".

[Campbell Ritchie]

Winston Gutkowski wrote:. . . Labour is set for a long period of opposition . . .

Unfortunately, as before, they will be in opposition to themselves rather than the Government, and like the last ten years, we shall have no credible opposition in Parliament.

[Winston Gutkowski]

Campbell Ritchie wrote:Unfortunately, as before, they will be in opposition to themselves rather than the Government, and like the last ten years, we shall have no credible opposition in Parliament.

Welcome to FPTP - the electoral system that denies proper government ... unless, of course, there are only two parties running.
Odd that, of the 28 (former) members of the EU, we are the only one that practises it; and of the real democracies left in the world outside Europe, only former colonies use it.

I guess getting the results on one night means more to people than the value of their vote.

Bernard-Shaw (I think) said: For every complex human problem, there is a simple solution ... and it's almost invariably wrong.

Winston

[Campbell Ritchie]

Winston Gutkowski wrote:. . . Welcome to FPTP - the electoral system that denies proper government ... unless, of course, there are only two parties running. . . . I guess getting the results on one night means more to people than the value of their vote. . . .

Couldn't agree more. If there are >2 parties, it whittles them down to two. Actually in the 1951 election, when the Libs were a very small force, there were more votes cast for the opposition (Labour) than for the government candidates (Conservative). So it doesn't even work for two parties. And without meaning to offend anybody who happens to live in Ayrshire, there is also the problem of constituencies in some of the more rural parts of the country having electorates about 30000 whilst places like the Valleys of Glamorgan have 80000 electorates.
There are other problems; if I moved about 4 miles south-west I would move from a safe seat one way to a safe seat the other way, and my vote remains almost worthless in comparison with the majorities. If, however, I move 4 miles south-east, my vote will become very valuable because it is a marginal seat. When I was at school aged about twelve, I was told that first past the post meant there would always be a majority and we'd have strong governments, not like in It*l*. Hss “strong” government ever done us any good? And I agree, FPTP elections result in the tail wagging the dog, almost.

[Winston Gutkowski]

Campbell Ritchie wrote:And without meaning to offend anybody who happens to live in Ayrshire, there is also the problem of constituencies in some of the more rural parts of the country having electorates about 30000 whilst places like the Valleys of Glamorgan have 80000 electorates

True, but Ayrshire isn't one of them. Ayr itself has more than 50,000 people. I suspect it's also a form of DP.

My problem with FPTP is not that it's simple (or indeed representative, at a local level), but that it's TOO simple, and parties that win feel like they have a "mandate" (and watch how often that word is used) that is wholly unsupported by their actual popularity. No government in the UK has had the support of 50% of the electorate since 1935, and yet they've enacted legislation - some of it far-reaching - on behalf of ALL of us since then.

The Netherlands is probably the only other country that has a chance of passing a Leave vote, because the legislation to even have one will need the support of 50% of the people - not just members of parliament - to vote for it. But they're going to look pretty silly erecting borders to the rest of Europe that they can't even enforce ... at least not until they also get out of Schengen.

As for Marine Le Pen? I don't know. That family seems to breed like Napoleon's, so I suspect there will be a "petit France" voice in French politics for some time to come. I just hope that the nation of Voltaire and Balzac and Hugo - and above all Descartes - proves stronger than this family dynasty.

Winston

[Ahmed Bin S]

Winston Gutkowski wrote:
What's happening to the Labour party now is not new; it's happened at least twice before: once in the 1930's and again in 1981, when it voted in a old-guard left-winger (at that time Michael Foot) as leader, split, and was then annihiliated in the election of 1983 by a Tory party whose vote actually went down (despite her reputation as the 'Iron Lady', Margaret Thatcher never polled more than 44% of actual voters). Result: 18 years in opposition wilderness.

Well, you can't blame a left-winger for 18 years in the wilderness if he gained power in 1981, surely the first two years of Thatcher's reign cannot be blamed on Foot.

Winston Gutkowski wrote:
The echoes with today are amazing, yet no Labour supporter seems to see them: In 2015, following their election defeat, Labour voted in a 66-year old left-wing back-bencher (Jeremy Corbyn) as their leader, pretty much by acclamation (he got 59% of membership votes).

Unfortunately, his performance in the referendum - including refusing to stand on the same platform as other Remain figures - was less than enthusiastic, and he was dubbed "unable to win an election" by a rebellion of his own MPs by a vote of 172-40 in the wake of the Remain defeat. Amazingly, far from accepting this as a huge vote of no-confidence, the membership - backed by an online group called Momentum - see it as a threat to party democracy and seem determined not only to re-elect him, but possibly de-select the 4/5ths of MPs who voted against him.

That isn't the way it works. Jeremy Corbyn has a responsibility to the party members.  They voted him in.
The liberals in the party (which the majority of Labour MPs are) believe Corbyn is unelectable because he is too far to the left. That is why they have been trying all sorts of smears to oust him.
If Jeremy Corbyn did step aside, as you are suggesting he do, then the party will go towards the centre. But the party members voted for him because they want the party to be on the left. Therefore, he is obliged to remain in charge - he owns it to his party members.

Winston Gutkowski wrote:
Whatever happens, it seems that Labour is set for a long period of opposition; and if the party splits (again) possibly even oblivion.

A split is what is needed. The "liberals" in Labour are not true to what Labour originally was about. They should get out and form their own party.

It's a bit like the Democrats - the liberals do not represent huge sections of Democrat voters (who vote for them out of necessity) but the liberals have the most influence in the media and they are well funded.

Social media is changing things however, and the activists in both the UK and the US are refusing to let the liberals bully them.

[Paul Clapham]

Joe Bishara wrote:

Ahmed Bin S wrote:We in Britain already have control of our borders...

You might think so. Many won't agree.

When I went to Switzerland recently, I flew into Geneva and I had to show my passport to a Swiss policeman. A perfectly reasonable setup and not surprising at all. But when I flew out of Geneva upon departure, I had to show my passport again to another Swiss policeman, which surprised me a bit. So the Swiss are controlling their borders in that way. But Britain doesn't do that; they want to see my passport when I arrive but not when I leave. So Britain could certainly improve its border control without leaving the EU, at least in one way.

[Ahmed Bin S]

Paul Clapham wrote:

Joe Bishara wrote:

Ahmed Bin S wrote:We in Britain already have control of our borders...

You might think so. Many won't agree.

When I went to Switzerland recently, I flew into Geneva and I had to show my passport to a Swiss policeman. A perfectly reasonable setup and not surprising at all. But when I flew out of Geneva upon departure, I had to show my passport again to another Swiss policeman, which surprised me a bit. So the Swiss are controlling their borders in that way. But Britain doesn't do that; they want to see my passport when I arrive but not when I leave. So Britain could certainly improve its border control without leaving the EU, at least in one way.

I am confused! Presumably you are flying out of LHR or LGW - at both airports you have to show your passport to someone before they let you get airside. Or am I missing something?!

[Paul Clapham]

Ahmed Bin S wrote:

Paul Clapham wrote:When I went to Switzerland recently, I flew into Geneva and I had to show my passport to a Swiss policeman. A perfectly reasonable setup and not surprising at all. But when I flew out of Geneva upon departure, I had to show my passport again to another Swiss policeman, which surprised me a bit. So the Swiss are controlling their borders in that way. But Britain doesn't do that; they want to see my passport when I arrive but not when I leave. So Britain could certainly improve its border control without leaving the EU, at least in one way.

I am confused! Presumably you are flying out of LHR or LGW - at both airports you have to show your passport to someone before they let you get airside. Or am I missing something?!

Sure, when I fly out of any airport I have to show my passport to dozens of people. But here's what you are missing: none of those people are UK Immigration officials. The fact that I have left the UK isn't recorded in a government database, and nobody puts a stamp in my passport recording that fact.

[Ahmed Bin S]

Paul Clapham wrote:
Sure, when I fly out of any airport I have to show my passport to dozens of people. But here's what you are missing: none of those people are UK Immigration officials. The fact that I have left the UK isn't recorded in a government database, and nobody puts a stamp in my passport recording that fact.

I used to fly a lot, so I should know this, but I guess I never paid any attention. I haven't flown for 2.5 years now, so I'm having to think here...

Yes, it seems you do have a point. At Gatwick it's just a machine that you swipe your ticket on before you get through to the security, but at Heathrow it's a bunch of people at desks - don't they check your passport? I am sure they do. Whether they're just airport staff or immigration officials, I don't know.

How about when you are about to board the plane and the airline staff scan your ticket - I am assuming this system is property of the airport, right? Maybe the government has access to this system?

[Paul Clapham]

Yeah, it's quite possible that the airlines report the passport numbers of arriving and departing passengers to the UK government. Wouldn't surprise me at all really. But there must be some purpose to the Swiss (and Australian and Costa Rican) habit of making departing airline passengers explicitly meet an immigration officer who scans and stamps their passports.

On the other hand from the Geneva airport I got into a small van which took me out of Switzerland and into France. No Swiss officials looked at my passport then (and no French officials either) and I'm pretty sure the van operators didn't ask for our passport details either. They just asked if we had border ID, I suppose because somebody at the border might stop us and ask us for it.

[Campbell Ritchie]

Paul Clapham wrote:. . . I have to show my passport to dozens of people. . . . none of those people are UK Immigration officials. . . .

HM Government “delegated” that task to airline staff ages ago. Most passports have an RFID in, so simply holding the passport over the desk probably allows them to query databases etc. Last time I flew into Britain, I had to go through a different channel and hold my passport against a reader, at which point my photo appeared on a screen. I presume there was some facial recognition software to confirm I looked like my photo.

Is this a new topic? Should these last few posts be split into a new thread?

[Winston Gutkowski]

Campbell Ritchie wrote:Is this a new topic? Should these last few posts be split into a new thread?

Dunno. Since Brexit seems to have boiled down to a squabble over immigration and border control, rather than sovereignty, I guess it's sort of relevant.

However, since LHR alone handled 75 million people last year, and most counts I've seen suggest that only 3 million or so EU residents live in the UK, it seems highly unlikely that immigration counts are done solely at points of entry, if at all.

Winston