One main issue stood out during the campaign in favour of the UK leaving the European Union; restricting the free movement of people, meaning immigration.

Enoch Powell was a politician back in the 1970’s who was strongly opposed to immigration into the UK and warned at that time that entry into the European Economic Community would be a slippery slope into being UK being controlled by Europe.

Economists however will tell you that immigration, the availability of cheap labour, is fundamental to economic prosperity and will site the United States of America as an example. They are not concerned with social integration and interaction however, as are the communities who live with immigrants.

The UK is about half way down the league table of EU countries accepting immigrants

To solve a ‘problem’ you have to first define it which means asking what an immigrant actually is. Is a person with a British passport an immigrant for instance? The answer is yes, so citizens from dual national parents, are allowed to live and work in the UK. British citizens from ex-colonies across the world were awarded British passports, such as those fleeing Uganda and Hong Kong and economic migrants from the West Indies. These movements of British citizens were in the 1970’s are now generally socially integrated into the UK and have been important in creating the prosperity and diversity of today. There was public concern over these immigrants taking jobs and houses and using public services and much of this concern is reflected in the speeches of the right wing politicians at the time such as Enoch Powell.

Was this source of immigration as a result of the UK connections with Europe? The answer is no, since the colonies and returning ex-patriots from countries like Ian Smith’s South Africa were nothing to do with Europe. Two thirds of immigrants to the UK today come from around the world not Europe so any attempt to restrict immigration will need to cast a net wider than Europe.

Even if you just focus on European immigrants into the UK there needs to be a working definition of what an immigrant is. A tourist on a two week holiday is not an immigrant, however they can enter a country legally and ‘overstay’ to work in the ‘underground’ economy i.e. not paying tax and being exploited. More extreme rouses are used such as landing on remote beaches with no papers.

One strand of solving this problem would be government ordering authorities to round up those living in the UK illegally. This would include involving the beleaguered National Health Service who will treat anybody on production of a electricity bill with a name and address. Within this group are criminals involved in people smuggling and modern slavery and sex trafficking – nothing to do with the EU but certainly a problem resulting from lamentably poor UK enforcement of it’s borders.

Students are presently given visas to stay for the duration of their studies and until recently, were given three months to leave after the end of their courses. Somebody in government realised that this was a nonsense, since graduates are highly employable and there is little reason to send them home so quickly. So the law was changed allowing them to remain in the UK for a longer period.

One of the largest movements of immigrants from Europe are migrant workers. These are seasonal workers who travel within Europe to where the wages are highest. They are ‘unskilled’ but vital to farmers and fishing to pick and process fruits of the land and sea. This type of work is not preferred by UK citizens who prefer not to for various reasons, hence a dependence on EU nationals to work in the UK. Even good old British ‘fish and chips’ needs someone to lift potatoes from the flat fields of East Anglia.

None of these types of immigration have yet highlighted how the EU is responsible for a problematic level of immigration into the UK. Indeed people wanting to come and work in your country is an indication of it’s success as an economically and socially prosperous place to live. Unemployment in the UK is very low, compared to 25% for instance in Southern Spain.

The ‘solution’ to the ‘problem’ being offered by the present Tory government is to introduce a points based system of immigration.

Whether this is a solution that fits a problem is open to analysis and debate. If low paid workers are vital to farming and fishing, how will a system favouring highly educated applicants pick potatoes from the fields?

Farmers growing vegetables today want to know from the government how the free movement of migrants is going to work at least by September 2020. If there is no decision and ‘no deal’ then it is not worth farmers planting crops that cannot be harvested in the winter and spring of the following year. Similarly the fishing boats, seeking expansion of their industry following the retaking of UK international waters, will not catch fish that cannot be gutted and frozen on the port side because there are no migrant workers to do it.

The European Union was never a club that gives out free money to it’s wealthy members. It is a club that gives free money to it’s poorest members however and many parts of the poorest parts of Europe such as the Mediterranean nations in the south, have benefited hugely from membership. The EU operates more as Robin Hood than the Sheriff of Nottingham and that is a principle which you would not expect would create an issue for right minded people. However the British people have been persuaded that it is somehow wrong to share their wealth. Being the fifth wealthiest country in the World is not a position that you can use to hide from moral arguments of supporting the poor and weak.

The EU (mainly Germany) went to huge lengths to support Greece when it was about to crash out of the European Union. The newly joined member countries from Eastern Europe are pleased to join as there are not only economic benefits but also gateways out of the social and economic memories of Soviet and Russian styles of government.

With leadership comes responsibility and just on this single issue, of immigration as an indication of lack of national sovereignty, the UK has not taken responsibility but simply blamed Brussels. That argument chimed with voters who we know are generally in favour of being governed by institutions as close to them as possible. Where Brussels is exactly and why millions of British soldiers died fighting two world wars in Belgium is not necessarily something voters are going to consider. Do they know that Ostende and Zeebrugge are about the same distance from London and Westminster as is Birmingham?

They argue instead that the elected members of the European Parliament are unelected and non representative of their views. This despite the fact that only on 5% of all occasions to vote on European policy and law has the UK voted against what was being proposed. In other words, what has been good for the EU is also good for the UK.

Could it be that the present prosperity of the UK, in social, economic, culture, research, security and concern for the environment is largely a result of it’s membership of the European Union?

Could there be a massive slight of hand taking place by the Conservative governments of the last decades, to blame Europe for problems rather than deal with them themselves? Who cares that British children are suffering from poor physical and mental health in numbers which should shock most of the British public?

Who cares about the physically and mentally ill unemployed and homeless occupying the empty town centres of the United Kingdom? Who cares that the public services in the United Kingdom which used to be the envy of the world are now failing? Why does the UK spend one of the lowest proportions of it’s GDP in Europe on public health?

Even just these three problems might been seen as more important that the ‘problem’ of being a member of the European Union.

I fear that the public have been manipulated by a clever slight of hand into facing the wrong issues and blaming the wrong causes.

Any problem with Europe could have been solved within Europe as a full and respected member. Since that proved too difficult for such as David Cameron who spent two weeks prior to the referendum in June 2016 ‘battling for Britain’ – how can we expect Tory governments to introduce policies to protect the weak within it’s own borders, even?

Has anyone projected the consequences of Brexit in the near and distant future – a list that should be under two headings of intended consequences and unintended consequences?

Politicians such as Teresa May held her cards very close to her chest when drawing up her infamous ‘Withdrawal Agreement‘. She argued that she could not let out her plans before negotiation starts, which meant that she received no guidance or feedback on her ‘red lines’ and ideas until it was too late.

You would however expect a ‘Conservative and Unionist Party’ to be comfortable with the strategy of ‘union’. Is there not a blatant contradiction between what they do and how they think. Why would a Unionist party dis-approve of Union within Europe? Is there not evidence of double dealing here? If they argue that the Union within the shores of British Isles and Eire is to what the name refers then is that not again a double standard. And given that Northern Ireland and Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in Europe, what is expected happen next in these two countries? Surely the people of these countries are going to want to have their say, including using the Tory ‘referendum’ tool now that it has been used to beat ‘Remainers’ into submission? One unintended consequence of leaving Europe could well be that England and Wales becomes the only working Union left within the United Kingdom – within the next five or ten years.

One in four people in the United Kingdom voted to leave Europe – all 17.4 million of them. But three out of four have not had their preferences and understanding of what the problem is, heard and acted upon. Some of them were too young to vote, some of them didn’t bother to vote, some of them were too old to vote, some of them were too ill to vote, some of them were not meant to be in this country, so did not vote, some of them are ‘foreigners’ so cannot vote and some of them did – just not enough. If you wonder why they didn’t vote it might just be that they didn’t think that European Membership was a the main problem. Perhaps they could see how inept Tory government policies were and that is why a second confirmatory referendum was blocked as an option by the Tories. If you want to win you need to fudge issues and the General Election of 2019 did that in spades against a disunited collection of opposition parties.

Kicking over the sand castle is easy. Just wait until 31^st December this year when the Trade and other Agreements between the UK and European Union have not been finalised, and the Tory government will knee jerk into to what it does best, kick over the sand castle again and leave ‘no deal’ on the beach.

And is it just me or why is this process of leaving broken into two parts? Now we have agreed the terms of leaving we have to decide everything else (as if negotiating both at the same time is too difficult). How can you formally leave an organisation without having agreed the terms and conditions of what happens afterwards? This is like taking delivery of a new car, paying in full, receiving the key and log book, registering filling the tank and then sitting down and deciding what colour it should be and what extras should be fitted and what the price is.

It would not be correct to say that you have ‘never smoked’. Even the most abstemious person has inhaled the exhaled smoke from a third party smoker. It is impossible not to, even with the European anti-smoking laws in place. It used to be a lot worse for non-smokers. I took a plane trip to Australia in the 1990’s when the cabin was divided between smokers and non-smokers. The row of non-smoking seats which I occupied, was directly in front of the smokers. Every exhalation sent a cloud of despair and chemicals into my lungs. The theory was that fresh air enters the cabin from the cockpit end and goes out at the back. But even if you were not enjoying the clouds coming from behind in a boundary seat, most of a plane’s air is recycled.

Smoke can even come out of your ears

If Jesus was alive, and perhaps he is, he would say, ‘smokers on the left and non-smokers on the right.’ But even his best intentions would not help non-smokers delay that long haul flight to heaven that we all eventually take.

I went to a restaurant in Southern Spain recently and chose to sit on the terrace over looking the sea. My satisfaction in finding a comfortable table was soon replaced by despair. A man came to the table next to mine, sat down, pulled out a packet of cigarettes and lit up.

I did the only thing I could do was to pick up my drink and bags and clumsily move indoors. I am a committed non-smoker, but it is not easy and the smokers rarely realise why you are moving. Smokers are generally indifferent to those who are devoted non-passive smokers. When they are the exchange goes like this, as it did last year between myself and a smoker in a restaurant.

‘Oh, you are eating. Do you mind if I sit here and smoke?’

Since the man was polite enough to ask I gave him the answer he had probably never heard.

‘Yes, I do mind.’

Despite a pronounced injury causing him to limp, to his credit, he heard me and staggered away.

I wasn’t quite sure what the eating had to do with anything. Do some people object to the carcinogenic smoke changing the taste of food. Are they really so fixed on the idea of protecting flavour from smoke rather than staying in good health?

It is not that I am unsympathetic to nicotine addicts. Despite the fact that no one is forced to smoke and most people have been and are made aware of the risks of smoking, it is not common knowledge that nicotine is probably the most addictive drug known, meaning more than heroine and cocaine.

Those with low will power and or looking for an instant ‘high’ or ‘release’ or ‘relax’ or whatever it is…are likely to experiment first with the drugs society deems legal.

Picture credit: iStock

This despite the fact that for almost one hundred years, the toxicity of cigarettes has been known. Gone today are the Marlboro adverts featuring tough cowboys seated in tough Jeeps on tough roads with tough cowgirls peering quizzically at a nonchalantly balanced cigarette on the tough lower lip of the hero. In those days girls had not attended autopsy’s and viewed the hideously blackened lungs or the tough guys. Today those girls are our Doctors and they have little time for patients who self inflict disease, unless you have private health insurance of course.

There was a time when the National Health Service of the UK spent as much on trying to cure diseases caused by smoking as the chancellor of the exchequer reaped from taxes.

The coil of smoke from a lit cigarette is like the genii who haunted Aladdin. The spirit has escaped from the bottle or lamp and once out, is never going to return. If governments banned tobacco tomorrow the whole business would pass into the criminal underworld, blowing smoke rings around law enforcement as in the days of ‘prohibition’ in New York.

Education might appear to be a better way than legislating but what effect has that had? The citizens of Europe today have had ample information about the harm smoking tobacco causes. Even the packet is defiled with a gruesome medical photograph of the innards of a being with low will power. Still the addicted reach for the packet for the uplift which a chemical is telling them they need and still the governments collect the tax revenues from sales.

It is still the passive smokers like myself I feel sorry for. Should we really have to hold our breath as we walk behind a smoker in a crowded street. Who says that ‘public places’ are just fine for indulging in a habit you wouldn’t really want your very young children to know about, let alone inhale.

On 2nd August 1934 the president of Germany, Paul von Hindenburg died. Seventeen days later Chancellor Adolf Hitler declared a referendum. The question to the people was…should the posts of president and chancellor be merged? According to Wikipedia there was intimidation of the public to obtain the vote Hitler wanted and got. It gave him absolute power and the rest as they say is history.

This is not to say that all referendums are bad. You could have one asking whether all kittens should wear pink or blue bows. I’m not suggesting you should, but you could. Switzerland for instance has four referendums a year. Direct democracy suits the Swiss, although I suspect in many countries, voters would fail to turn out on account of being ‘bored’ with referendums. This was a common complaint in the UK following the referendum in June 2016.

The fact that many politicians and civil servants distrust referendums as a route to policy decisions, is hinted at in the fact that they are only ‘advisory’. In the UK Brexit vote, the main parties promised to abide by the result in their manifestos, something they later probably regretted.

Socrates was against voting by uneducated people on the grounds that they could not possibly understand the issuesin the same way that you go to the Doctor for advice on your health, not the person sweeping the street. What we know, is different for each person and there is a concept called ‘the wisdom of the crowd’. In this the understanding comes not from the individual but the collective and on some matters it works. People en mass can get it right.

However, as the late Dr Hans Rosling has shown, even experts (15% correct) can perform worse than monkeys (30% correct) when asked questions about population growth.

Making complex decisions based on multiple variables, sources, probably outcomes, threats, subsequent strategic objectives etc can just be impossible. So hold in the back of your mind the idea that perhaps, Socrates was right.

Referendums have to follow an organised routine in order to be regarded as fair. This is why the rules of a referendum are vitally important. They must be agreed, practised precisely and officiated (the last being to make sure they are followed).

When children go to school, they are given the opportunity to play team sports. Let us take the example of cricket. The PE teacher will sit down the eager children, all dressed in their whites, and explain the rules of cricket. What will not happen for sure is that a small child at the back will lift a hand and ask, ‘why?’

The teacher will explain that these are the rules and have been for a very long time and that is just the way it is. A pretty poor answer in my view. The rules for games are, after all is considered, also only advisory and if you want to have four stumps at each end or play with a different shape bat or ball, run backwards…why not? Rules are arbitrary and exist only if they are followed.

So let us examine the rules that govern referendums.

I suggest that referendums fall into a similar category of ‘game’ with rules that are just ‘made up’. I can substantiate this proposition as follows.

1. The referendum issue can arise from a single issue party or individual with plenty of money to donate to party funds. For instance, Rupert Murdoch owns a string of UK newspapers such as the Daily Mail and the Sun, neither of which would win prizes for balanced reporting. Sir Clive Goldsmith donated to Conservative Party funds and was a keen anti-European. His influence, I believe, got the Brexit question into the Tory manifesto. This process was not particularly democratic but followed the rules.

2. The referendum rules need careful consideration and adjustment so that the result does not split a government and a nation down the middle. In other words, democracy is not held to ransom by a minority of ‘swing voters’. Similarly, a insignificant margin in favour of one side leaves a strong minority to contest. This minority is practically the same as a half way split as both sides are constantly at war. The spirit of democracy is only served when a substantial majority of voters want the same thing. In government this may occur as a coalition. In referendum rules, this is termed a super majority and it can be a minimum of 60% or higher. The UK is currently split almost down the middle over Brexit and the lack of a requirement for a super majority, meant the infighting in the parties and the people was not solved or quietened, even after the referendum.

3. Who votes? Generally the most motivated voters are those who have strong views. They might be misguided, ill informed or ignore the question, but what counts is that they will get themselves to the voting booths, no matter what. Those who expect the vote to go one way or the other and therefore they don’t need to vote, stay at home. These are called the silent majority. Some will vote because they value their vote as a democratic right fought for in two world wars. Some will not vote because they have lived outside the UK for over 15 years and are therefore not invited to vote. Others may post a vote which is either sent out too late to be returned in time or is lost in the post.

In all of these scenarios, the democracy that is held up to the high altar by the winners, has not functioned as a true reflection of the wishes of an overwhelming majority, but a function of unregulated and random and inhibitors and motivators. Is this democracy?

4. How do voters obtain their information? In the twenty first century, the availability of information on any subject, is something undreamed of thirty years ago. Because the internet (in it’s light and dark theatres) is largely unregulated and operates outside national boundaries and legal jurisdiction, anything can be claimed by anybody, as true. If you can make the same claims in multiple virtual places and repeatedly it seemingly becomes more true. Russia, allegedly, has rooms of computer operators who are filling chat rooms and newsfeeds and social media pages with misinformation.

As Mark Twain said, ‘when Truth is putting it’s boots on, the lie is half way around the world.

Adolf Hitler was an unashamed liar knowing that the majority don’t attempt to refute. A minority might but under the rules of democracy, their views can be ignored. Activists risk recrimination from the authorities. Witness the events in Hong Kong today.

The President of the United States is a regular liar, rarely reading books and just making things up, presumably to wrong foot those wishing to have an informed debate.

In the UK referendum in June 2016, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, presented a collection of very dubious ‘facts’ to voters persuading them to vote to leave the European Union. This is corroborated in the recently published memoirs of the resigning Prime Minister, David Cameron. There were also campaigns using social media to spread unsourced information. This is not democracy

5. Why would you not vote?

The silent majority have a lot to answer for. They have the vital ability to challenge the highly motivated minority who do vote.

You will sometimes hear the view expressed that each citizen has a right vote and because this right was defended in two world wars, each person is honour bound to vote. This is a strong argument and yet the majority don’t think this way. Why not? Well here are some common ‘self justifications’.

If you believe the vote is one hundred per cent certain to go in a particular direction, you might justify not getting the car out of the garage and watch the TV instead on voting day. Certainly in the UK referendum of 2016, there was a general assumption that the Remain vote would win easily.

Some people in the UK express total distrust of politicians and the processes of parliament. They sight the expenses scandal where some MP’s were less than honest over their expenses. They say that this is the reason they don’t vote. Whether they would prefer a dictatorship, like the reinstatement of the Monarchy or a prime minister who closes down parliament, you have to ask them.

If you don’t need parliament you are cooked, you will have a dictatorship. That is what it will be

Margaret Atwood : Author

In a referendum a question is asked. Not surprisingly, considerable time is spent in deciding what this question should be. Statisticians know this is a cardinal rule of their science. Who writes the question is largely in control of what the answer will be. For instance, if the question is specifically on a lesser issue, the colour of kittens bows, the question is easier to understand and the answer specific. As the question becomes more general the scope for not understanding the issues grows. So a very general question such as whether the UK should leave the European Union is so broad that few will clearly understand the issues. The question could have been, for instance, should the UK reduce immigration? as that was the issue that many voters at the time had strong feelings and differences about.

What happened was many voted in a way that expressed their anti-establishment views. You therefore have a referendum result for one question which in a substantial number of voters minds, was another question. In school examinations pupils are reminded repeatedly to ‘answer the question’ because humans often lose track of the issues and move into emotionally driven concerns.

Referendums give irrational results for many reasons. Analysts and commentators know that on voting days when the weather is bad, fewer people will vote. Other practical reasons for not voting are not having transport, being ill, at work or living in another country. That last reason was ironically about a vote affecting those ex-pats living EU the most. If anyone should be allowed to vote it should be them, you might argue.

6. How many referendums?

There has been much debate on whether there should be another referendum following the first in the UK in June 2016. Those who argue against it say that the suggestion they did not understand the issues in full, is condescending. They are certain they did understand all the issues and they just want their wishes to be carried out. They also suggest that if there were a second referendum this would justify a third and a fourth and there is a principle that you should not keep asking a question until you get the answer you want.

On the first point, I would argue that no one really understood the issues and consequences of the question. Even politicians (who are paid to know) are divided in their views. So it is not condescending to suggest that the question was too broad.

On the second point, three parliamentary votes on the same issue, were employed by Teresa May in parliament to try to get her Withdrawal Agreement made into law. So no Tory can argue that repetition of the same question is wrong. She had three goes at this before the Speaker ruled she should change the question in some way.

A referendum is only a snapshot of public opinion on one day. The next day, the next year, the facts will have changed and opinions. To have a second referendum three and a half years after the first, with a different question is sensible. Elections are held at similar time intervals and each election replaces the government of the country in a way acceptable to most.

There is a strong argument that the terms and conditions of the question to leave, were never agreed with Europe before the vote and they should have been, as in previous referendums. For the same reason ‘thorny issues’ such as the border in Ireland should have been resolved before any referendum. These pitfalls in the method and application of the referendum have contributed hugely to the unsightly events in Parliament since.

Statisticians will be fully aware of the changes in the structure of the demography of the United Kingdom in those three years. If old people tended to vote leave, some of these good folk will have died. Their votes will be replaced by young first time voters who are estimated to be about 3 million. Most people can see that if there was a second referendum the result could swing in favour of remaining in Europe for this reason alone. Stopping these voters having their say on a matter affecting them more than the elders, is not democratic but strategic.

Finally, a second referendum would not ask the same question. It might give more options than yes or no. It might be based on national interest rather than UK interest as independence parties in Scotland and Northern Ireland have interpreted the first referendum in that way.

Overall, the above examples above describe the fact that little in the referendum process resembles democracy. This is a sad reflection on a country that prides itself on it’s unwritten constitution and parliamentary procedures as a ‘beacon of democracy’. Referendumbs have been the route to create chaos out of a kind of order.

The next step has to be ‘return to Go and collect £200’, or in other words, cancel Article 50. Then sort out the island of Ireland to make it ‘Brexit’ proof and any other issue that inhibits agreement with Europe, agree a new Agreement with Europe and then go to the people in a general election on and ask the question whether these terms of leaving are desirable.

Horse / Cart – Cart / Horse.

Suppose for a moment you lived in an unstable African state. You might one day receive a threat from a ‘warlord’ or drugs cartel or terror group. You round up your family, grab a few possessions, kick the pets out onto the street and run. Where are you going?

Most wealthy and privileged people would head for the airport, wouldn’t they? A couple of suitcases, a fistfull of currency for a hurriedly purchased air ticket to ‘anywhere the next flight is going to,’ and a passport is all you need.

If you are a citizen of that state from which you now wish to flee and you don’t have a passport, what are you going to do? No passport at the airport and they won’t let you on the plane… international law says so. It’s only a hundred dollars to the next State so money isn’t the problem. The Government stole your passport, or some thief stole it, or it expired and you didn’t renew it, or it was burnt with the rest of your belongings when your house was burnt down – which is why you have to flee.

It’s a kind of Catch 22. If you are in trouble and you have nothing, you can’t get on the plane. If life is normal and you just need a holiday…you can get on the plane.

Many people and politicians are wondering why people are taking a one in six risk of drowning and fleeing by unsuitable boat. They think the problem is the cause of their flight and the people smugglers who ‘help’ them and the failed State fighting itself.

And yet there are working International Airports even in Libya. Why do not those fleeing the country take a plane?

The answer is of course this passport law. Understandably air lines don’t want passenger lists with a lot of question marks. USA airlines are providing passenger lists to the NSA before the plane even lands in the USA.

Yet with thefts of passports and help from those able to alter passports illegally, obtaining a new passport is not impossible. It might be enough to get someone on the plane even if they are detained on landing. They can then claim political asylum and sit out a few months in a detention camp. At least the food and bed is free.

The majority of emmigrants don’t have passports though and no means to get one. That is why they are taking their children and climbing into rubber boats that wouldn’t make it across a river, let alone a sea.

Clearly the problem is being created by the inability of emmigrants to get through an air or sea port. The air port staff at the check in desks are performing the task of ‘border control’ on behalf of governments. The question has to be ‘is this right?’

It’s wrong to believe too much in the a document like a passport. Even with passports, people are passengers on planes who have hidden their identity. These are the individuals most likely to have criminal backgrounds and or intent and they will be allowed to enter the country ‘for a holiday’ without being challenged.

If a person reaches the check out and falls on their knees in tears with a baby in their arms, begging to be allowed to leave the country as men with guns followed them there – should their be a compassionate process to allow them to get on the plane?

I would suggest their should. An asylum application is an international right and it matters little in which country it is made. What I mean is why can’t you be in Libya and apply for asylum in Europe? Why can’t you be in Calais and apply for asylum in the United Kingdom? Why can’t their be Embassy Offices in every airport and staff to process ’emergency’ applications? Every application for asylum is someone’s emergency even if it isn’t the airline’s or the Abassador’s. Why can’t an Emergeny Asylum Application allow a person or family to pass through a border control?

At present there is an argument that ‘undocumented passengers’ should not be allowed on planes for security reasons. They might be international terrorists pretending to be asylum seekers. That is true although, as already described, terrorists are going to pose as holiday makers or business staff before they pretend to be seeking asylum. Even then, if you wanted to be sure that a person or family were not carrying a bomb onto a plane; you send them through ‘security’ as you do every passenger. If you want enhanced security checks – a strip search for instance – and luggage examined in fine detail – then do it.

If you had a long enough queue of asylum seekers at an airport, you could start chartering aircraft for them or use military aircraft.

In my view there is an alarming lack of a strategy, certainly in Europe, that adresses immigration, front on.

You might have thought that there would have been agreement as to how many applicants should be allowed to work and for how long, and a quota arrangement allocating people to countries. Processing applicants for asylum could be achieved in any European or neighbouring country – providing the government staff have wi-fi!

Thinking globally should be second nature to the international men and women who take up positions of government whether in Europe or the United States of America. Both have different immigration demands but the basics are the same.

President Trumps response to build a wall on the Mexican border is the same as Italy’s prime minister who stops rescue boats entering Italian ports. Both strategies are looking at the tail end of the problem rather than the front.

The front view is that there is no humane process in place to accept or reject asylum seekers.

Both Union’s could seek the support of the United Nation’s Refugee Council active player’s in a global strategy or relocation.

People in distress clearly must and will pick up a suitcase and run. People in search of economic benefits will do the same but these will not pass the asylum questions – hopefully! So if populations are willing to leave all they have, governments should have strategies to deal with them with compassion and fairness.

Because it is not just war and rogue governments that cause populations to move en mass. Factors such as climate change – floods, flames and famine – should also be in the mass migration plans of the emergency planners.

Sea level changes alone will become a cause of massive movements of populations in the next decades to come. Volcanic activity and earth movements will destroy cities as they have done in the past and people will evacuate islands and vulnerable seismic locations and new deserts in large numbers.

It’s a huge problem for which non-government agencies should not be leaned on too hard to ‘sort out’.

A good place to start however in the present is to change the question at airports from ‘can I see your passport?’ to ‘how can I help you?’ The rest is common sense.