Angela Skeels Letter:

‘Leave’ was to take back control of our borders It is disturbing that we have heard so little from the Labour Party and the cheerleaders of Remain about what their wish to remain in the Single Market (SM) and Customs Union (CU) will mean for Britain’s ability to control its borders and the continuation of mass uncontrolled immigration. It is hard to pin Labour down on their Brexit policy and where they stand on the SM and CU because it changes so often.

So, lets start from what we do know. We know that Jeremy Corbyn supports having no border controls whatsoever, ie, anyone can come and live and work in the UK and claim benefits from day one. In other words zero control. We also know that he visited the camps in Calais and Dunkirk and told the illegal immigrants there, that have incidentally not bothered to claim asylum in France, that if and when he forms a Government, they will be welcome in Britain, and no doubt without carrying out any security checks.

Labour’s current position on the SM and CU is also 
incompatible with controlling our borders and immigration. Membership of the SM or the CU means that Britain will be forced to accept the free movement of people, without any control over who arrives in the UK. Some in the Remain camp have suggested that we can deport EU nationals who have become a burden on the host nation, or if they have not worked for six months.

Yet, in December 2017 the High Court ruled that the removal of homeless people from EU or EEA countries is contrary to EU law and discriminatory. No doubt, as well as, being homeless, they have been out of work for some time. If those EU nationals out of work for more than six months, or those who are not in work and sleeping rough, cannot be deported, that technically means that deportation is almost impossible. Likewise, the European commission has said EU member states have no right to deport EU citizens for being homeless and said EU citizens had a right to live in other EU countries “irrespective of whether they are homeless or not”.

In summary, this means that Labour and the pro-
remain camp still support a policy of open borders and mass uncontrolled immigration without any security checks or Government accountability, and the 350,000 a year free for all can continue unabated just as before. Labour and the Remain camp must be called to 
account on this, which is one of the key reasons why the British people voted Leave, ie to take back control of our borders.

Angela Skeels 22nd March 2018

Read more at: https://www.spaldingtoday.co.uk/news/weekend-web-spalding-guardian-letters-1-8424903

 

 ****************

 

Alan Meekings in reply:

Angela Skeels makes outrageous claims in her Spalding Guardian letter of 22 March. For instance, she says that “Labour and the pro-remain camp still support a policy of open borders and mass uncontrolled immigration without any security checks or Government accountability, and the 350,000 a year free-for-all can continue unabated just as before.” This is completely untrue and, frankly, insults the intelligence of readers of the Spalding Guardian.

Let me start with some facts:

(1)   The majority of inward migration comes from outside the EU. This is completely controllable, albeit successive governments have chosen not to use their powers. The reality is that Theresa May, the second longest-serving Home Secretary in British history, said, for six years in row, that her “target” was to reduce net migration to fewer than 100,000 people annually, but then did absolutely nothing to make this happen. This is a matter of public record and cannot be blamed on EU membership.

(2)   In addition to having complete control over non-EU migration, Theresa May also had effectively complete control over EU migration. Specifically, she had 16 levers she could have pulled to control ‘EU freedom of movement for labour’. For instance, if you wanted to work in, say, Belgium, you’d have to register within 10 days of arrival and then demonstrate within three months of arrival that you’re both in work and economically self-sufficient. Otherwise, you’ll be sent home. No ifs, no buts. In contrast, here in the UK, we don’t even bother to track incoming migrants. People like Angela, who complain about migration, should be blaming Westminster, not Brussels.

(3)   Inward migration figures include a large number of students coming to study in the UK, 70% of whom are from non-EU countries and all of whom pay loads of money in tuition fees and living costs to help fund our world-class universities, other educational establishments and our economy as a whole;

(4)   The UK needs migrants because it has a chronic skills gap. Our country has more job vacancies than sufficient skilled British-born workers to fill them. Britain needs more engineers, scientists, doctors, teachers, welders, chefs and hundreds of other skilled trades and professions;

(5)   Unemployment is currently at a 40-year low, largely due to the benefits of EU membership over the past 45 years. People tend to forget that, when we joined what is now the EU in 1973, the UK was known, around the world, as the “Sick Man of Europe” economically and the “Dirty Man of Europe” environmentally. In contrast, prior to the EU Referendum in 2016, we’d become the fastest-growing economy among the G7 nations. Now, since the Leave vote, our economy has shrunk and we’ve become the slowest growing G7 economy . . . and Brexit hasn’t even yet started.

(6)   The interim report by the Migration Advisory Committee, commissioned by Theresa May to “provide an evidence base for the design of a new migration system after the end of the implementation period in 2021” confirms these facts. I strongly recommend Angela reads this report, as she’ll then have some facts at her fingertips.

Incidentally, Angela mentions, with righteous indignation, a case decided in the High Court in December last year, where the High Court (i.e. our High Court, not the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights, which, as everyone knows, has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU) decided that rough sleepers should not be deported simply because they were rough sleepers.

Angela says, and I quote, “No doubt, as well as being homeless, they have been out of work for some time.” What a heartless assumption. It takes only a few seconds to search online to discover the people involved in this case were in paid employment but simply didn’t have sufficient money to pay for proper accommodation.

We need two things in this country: first, a vibrant economy to pay for public services; and, second, a passion to distribute the benefits of economic growth more fairly.

If people who voted Leave in June 2016 had consciously known they were voting to be worse off but felt this would be a sacrifice worth paying in order to build a fairer, more just, more equitable society in the UK, I’d have said, “I really applaud your motives. However, we can still achieve these aims while remaining in the EU.”

If anyone reading this letter would like to know more about Brexit and what it means for themselves, their families, the local economy and the nation as a whole, I’d like to invite them to a couple of meetings that the Lincolnshire Branch of the European Movement is organising locally under the title of “The Brexit Conversation: Explaining the Facts, Exposing the Myths, Exploring the Options.”

The first meeting will be held in the WI Hall in Holbeach (150 seats) on the evening of Fri 20 Apr and the second in the Auditorium at the South Holland Centre in Spalding (342 seats) on the evening of Friday 25 May. Further details in due course.

Author: Alan Meekings

Alan Meekings is a management consultant specialising in the field of Organisational Performance Management. He has led programmes of major change and sustainable improvement with public, private and third sector organisations for over thirty years. He is a Visiting Fellow at Cranfield University School of Management, a Visiting Scholar at Heriot-Watt University School of Management and a member of the European Movement nationally and in Lincolnshire.

All views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Conservative Group for Europe or the European Movement.