Immigration: "No proper debate for many, many years"

Well, yes, the subjects of immigration and membership of the EU are bound together, and in both cases the facts have been hidden one way or the other from the voting public, so no meaningful debate or understanding of the realities has been possible.

In a parliamentary democracy you might have expected whoever is in opposition at the time to be more keen to put the facts before the public, but, it didn't work out that way at all.

Mainly because both political sides (Lab & Con) as was at the time felt it was the right thing to do and I doubt either side knew of the full ramifications of a United Europe which could only eventually come about by merging economies (money) and laws (politics) between all compliant members (countries). The 6 was never intended to become 26 as far as I (or anyone else for that matter) was aware. It's just the way it 'evolved'.
Along the way the general public were kept somewhat in the dark - after all - that's where mushrooms are best raised - with a view that all would be well in the end. Well - some end going by these last few years.

We are lucky we kept our currency - at one time that could have gone but for some internal troubles we had at the time otherwise - - - - -?

Your theory that our politicians often have insufficient in-depth knowledge, understanding or appreciation of realities, outcomes and implications to properly form policies, or make big decisions, does seem to fit with the facts.

The idea that the voting public can be, and need to be, kept in the dark, herded like sheep, is perhaps a peculiarly British twist on the European political 'vision'?

Believe me when I tell you that it is the only way 'democracy' can operate to its best advantage. Mass information and everybody having an input produces chaos and the results are almost always nothing like what was originally intended. Nothing gets done because not everyone can agree - ergo - work on what has been made available to you and keep the rest in the dark. When it comes to the vote - keep it tight and small. THAT'S how democracy actually works. No more - No less. So you can see how easily those that were in positions to vote from the onset of the Common Market had a less than 'long term' view of the end results and couldn't or wouldn't have been in possession of all the ramifications. They were working on what they had at the time - without the provision of hindsight or taking into consideration that everything (including a Common Market) 'evolves'. It's not done on purpose. Just a symptom of our political systems.

Your description of our democratic political system as a blind, stumbling, short termist setup relying on lack of information to keep the population detatched from understanding or engagement in decision making, does fit the facts.

That setup has been fairly accepted, but, too much political correctness so obviously stifling debate was perhaps the last straw for a certain percentage of the electorate?

Political spin doctors who advocated the regime of political correctness miscalculated the basic psychology of the British public, who will put up with awful weather and government, but only as long as we can complain about it.

Indeed. Such is the lot of most democracies - but I have to admit, we do take the biscuit.
The danger at present is that many will plumb for radicalism having lost faith with the main two political parties and scorning the third for it cronyism and lack of faith. Such is a very dangerous concept. The result could be another lost government made up of too many disparate parts - which isn't good for our type of economy.
It would be better for the two main parties to make up 95% of the next government for whichever gets in they will both have to make the cuts needed to get back on track (pre 2008) none of which is going to be palatable to the electorate - but which unfortunately will have to be the case.
There's no magic bullets here. The nation won't survive if we tinker around the edges. All it will do is prolong the agonies well in to the 2020's. Best get it over with - and stay away from that idiot UKIP - all mouth and trousers brigade.

"All mouth and trousers", "Swivel eyed loonies", UKIP attracts some colourful descriptions.

Is Mr. Cameron a bit over excited by his election win? Going by his speech today, he does seem to underestimate all that would need to be done to make an appreciable dint in immigration.

No. But he is happy he no longer has to fight three corners before the end of each round and the judges scores. He now has only two corners to fight - both in his own camp. He doesn't intend to stay for the whole bout and will probably go after the referendum whereupon they will put Teresa May in charge. If you think he has been tough you've seen nothing yet. Such a course of action will lose the Tories the 2020 election - probably to the Labour Party who will not have a working majority and will have to horse-trade with the Lib-dems who will insist on PR as part of the deal.
Nothing will be done as regards the immigration problems until after the referendum of which we shall have a No vote  as regards leaving. The populace of this country will never take the risk if they perceive there to be one. We are in the 'club' to 'stay'.

Any other psychic projections you want go to atlasdfour.com - But why you would bother unless you are a betting man/woman I have no idea.

My psychic projection for today is that Mr. Cameron will waste time and energy trying to reform the E.U., time and energy that would be better spent re-thinking the social and political consequences of UK austerity policies.

Indeed. But 'we' have put him in that position by our constant barracking over immigration and the human rights laws and the consequent rise of the lunatic parties. That's the price of democracy.

A future prime minister (now) was inevitably put in the position of having to sort out the consequences by whoever (then) decided the UK would join the EU.

That wasn't 'we', the British public. 'We' were kidded on we were joining a common market trade zone. The realities of the EU were only revealed years later.

One of those realities is now the agreements and arrangements for absorbing and sharing out the flow of refugees, estimates vary, but, depending on what happens for Syria, Libya, and other countries in crisis, could well be millions over the next few years.

Going off Cameron's age I am of the opinion that he was also 'put' in that position by his previous 'great and good' - until now there would have been precious little he or 'any one of us' could have done to ward off the present system in the EU.
When you join a club and you stay as a member for decades the rules change as the club 'matures'. Such is a consequence of change and time. To 'hang-on' to the past without change is seen as disloyal and Neanderthal at best and archaically stubborn at worst.
If you don't like the 'change' the choice is yours - stay and fight the changes or leave. Simples.

That is what he is doing at the moment - and leaving the country to decide at some later stage as to whether he has done sufficient or not. All other Machiavellian interludes during the process are only part and parcel of the political processes that are bound to present themselves.

We were never 'kidded' into the Common Market. We took it as presented at the time which was a 'trading bloc' with mutuality.  It was only later and after many political changes that 'Federation' was introduced.

We have what we have.  And now - a chance to change things. Whether for the better or not in the long run remains to be seen.

The battle of Calais is the focus of immigration news today, and probably will be ongoing. The French blame the English and the English blame the French, so the media tells us. All appears to be something of a debacle. London and the south east must be getting quite overcrowded now, but, will people become desperate enough to move to Wales?

No. Is the short answer to that. Nowhere for them to live. Unless they bring their own tents. No work. No facilities. No future. Wales died in the 70's - never to return. Born in the 1860's - had its 100 years - now dead. Only fit for retired people with enough money to see them off. So I'm not worried about immigration on my doorstep - won't happen.

That's the beauty of a nice place with not much economy or employment. Nothing to see here, move along please.

That is what some of us would call - a reason for being -.

It is however not the place to be bringing up families. Regardless of what you hear or are told Wales has always (for the last 100 years) sent the majority of its children away to earn a better living and to give the grandchildren a fighting chance. It doesn't work for all and a percentage do make it OK by staying. But its a lottery. Not helped by its insularity and parochialisms.

But for now. And for me. It will do my time out.

At least there are no illegal immigrants dropping out of the sky there, not as a rule anyway.

The UK seems to be running a survival-of-the-fittest type immigration system at Calais. Immigrants who can pass the obstacle course of clambering over fences, running after lorries, and generally having the determination and general fitness to try and try again will be the ones to get into the country, although a certain amount of luck must come into it.

The British always love a trier. Build him up then knock him down. All for one and bugger the rest.

France is the country in Europe with lots of underpopulated farmable land, and best placed to accept the big numbers.

Numbers of migrants flowing into Europe continues massive. UK reaction seems to be wanting to do the right thing, but insular and defensive. The old-fashioned awareness of Britain as an island nation seems to be having something of a revival?

It never went away. Just slumbered for a while. It wasn't needed - until now. Until we perceived a danger to our society by being too generous. The answer to the migrants problems lie in their own sphere of existence BUT will require the UN to initiate and project if it is to be beneficial to everyone (immigrants and countries of settlement). If we don't 'make' the UN adopt a global policy then we shall continue to have a huge problem which will cost us MORE in the long run than would a properly instituted immigrant program. It's not difficult to understand - but - where it gets difficult is convincing all the countries in the world to participate and contribute the necessary wherewithal. I don't really understand why OUR government hasn't asked the UN to intervene.

Quite a few people are puzzled by various aspects and implications of the sudden influx of migrants into europe, events surrounding and causing it, reasons behind why things are being done or not done.

Turkey began to 'get it right' when they instituted a 'no-fly, no-go zone of refuge' across its borders into Syrian territory to form an enclave for temporary sanctuary. The countries most affected are Lebanon and Jordan with more than a million 'immigrants/refugees' inside their borders as a result of the Syrian Civil War. The place to 'attend' to this temporary problem (and those refugees seeking sanctuary across the Middle east and southern Europe) is as near to their places of origin as possible. Only the UN can get the thing together successfully and demand of 'all' nations to contribute to their establishment, running and eventual permanent placement for those wishing to stay (most would return when the areas of conflict have been resolved). Wholesale shifts of populations are not acceptable unless those territories have become untenable (natural disasters etc etc). It was done with the Vietnamese boat people and others in the past and that was on a smaller scale than what is happening at the present moment.
It's not rocket science for Pete's sake -. Why are those in power such clodheads??

That is a puzzle, Atlas. Does your social Darwinism have an explanation? Is there an evolutionary advantage in being a 'clodhead'?

The whole international migration problem is too unmanageable and complicated to make any coherent comment on really. We have to wonder if Europe will cope, and what will happen in all the countries that people are leaving. It all seems to be part of a huge international disruption that nobody? understands as yet.