>>This is simply a Sovereign State softly removing those with zero right to remain.

Except that the official guidance by the Home Office clearly states that EU citizens can still enter visa-free to look for jobs. But of course as it always happens border force knows better than the Home Office. The fact that people are being actually sent to detention centres is beyond idiotic.

They can't enter visa free to "look for jobs" though. Per the guidelines, unless I'm missing something, they are allowed "to attend meetings, conferences and interviews". Interviewing is a very different status from looking for employment, and one that is documented too.

>This is simply a Sovereign State softly removing those with zero right to remain.

Nothing simple about that given that merely a year or two ago there effectively was no border, and now ordinary people who want to go look for a job sit in detention cells? Who does this help and how is it tame?

The UK more than any other European country should know the devastation borders can wreak.

Why do you resort to emotive language? This is a very simple policy. If the law changes, and you break the new law, you are still breaking the law.

Borders are determined by the desires of those within them. The right to self-determination is a key principle of international law (unless you're Spain, apparently).

It might be a simple policy but your border guards seem to have misunderstood it. It says EU citizens are allowed to enter UK for interviews but they are still being detained.

It is perfectly OK if you want to have inefficient system (wasting UK money on holding people who does not need to be held) but we as EU countries just ask that you give our citizens the possibility to call our embassies before you detain them to let us help them out of your country. Until then we will continue to calling you douchebags for how you treat our citizens that are trying to enter your country legally, sorry for the emotionally loaded words.

> It says EU citizens are allowed to enter UK for interviews but they are still being detained.

They are being detained because they do not enter the UK to attend interviews: The 2 women used as examples in the article did not have an interview scheduled and, as a consequence, did not have an invitation letter. They wanted to enter the UK to look for work. That's very different and, I expect, the reason they were detained as that is indeed illegal without a visa.

If it is allowed to enter visa-free to attend an interview and you have the necessary evidence (i.e. I expect, invitation letter and return ticket within 24-48 hours) I highly doubt that you will be detained.

There are always people who try to break the rules or who do not do their homework. This sort of thing happens everyday. The difference is that EU citizens are not used to this happening to them.

For instance, even before Brexit the UK was not in Schengen and I witnessed several times, both in UK and France, non-EU citizens being stopped on arrival despite being residents in UK/EU because they thought they didn't need a visa to visit Paris from London or London from Paris.

Please target your anger to at most half of the British people. (I will gladly join in.)

With the UK's horrifically undemocratic voting system, the leading party often wins a strong majority of the power in Parliament with significantly less than half the national vote.

In the 2019 election, the Conservative party won 56.2% of the seats in Parliament with 43.6% of the vote.[0]

In 2017, 48.8% of seats came from 42.4% of the vote.

In 2015, 50.8% of seats came from 36.8% of the vote.

In 2010, 47.1% of seats came from 36.1% of the vote.

In 2005, 55.2% of seats came from 35.2% of the vote.

In 2001, 62.5% of seats came from 40.7% of the vote.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_el... and links to other elections at the bottom.

The person in the article was planning to spend months looking for work. That's not entering for an interview. Interviews last hours, not months.

Yes, once the European Union stop ruining the Oceans and screwing over the third world, I promise to stop calling you all douchebags too.

>Why do you resort to emotive language?

because this border issue is an emotional and symbolic issue at heart and it's important to recognize that, there is no rational case here why there should be any restriction to freedom of movement. Are you going to be that calm if Scotland attempts to exercise it or if Irish violence flares up again? Erecting borders after decades of freedom of movement is no 'simple policy'. Detaining neighbors just because you can is a sort of behavior that indicates there's something going deeply wrong in the UK.

Tens of thousands of migrants have died trying to cross the Mediterranean to reach Europe. How many have died trying to reach Australia since their strict immigration policies were put in place? It might seem counterintuitive, but that "brutal" system saves thousands of lives each year.

The Home Office said, "suspected offences". Funny that the "Sovreign State" tried this in Scotland, isn't it?

What's the fact that it was in Scotland got to do with it?

It's baseless to believe that the home office would target something in Sturgeons constituency on some particular day, especially when there's no political advantage to be drawn by said act.

Immigration law applies to Scotland too; until there's a nice border there (but that's another topic).

I see your jingoistic sensibilities are clouding your thinking. Your political nous is also somewhat lacking, perhaps, if you can't see the power play here.

So instead of making your point, my thinking is too clouded to come to the same unexplained conclusion as you?

this is a bad-faith argument:

> It's baseless to believe that the home office would target something in Sturgeons constituency on some particular day, especially when there's no political advantage to be drawn by said act.

Judging by #10's behavior as a predictor for future behavior there is every reason to believe it was very much on purpose (and far from "baseless"). And even it wasn't on purpose it would now be on them to apologize and try to straighten things out - which ofc they don't.

If you were trying to argue your point in good faith you would have provided some examples of the behaviour you are talking about, of which I know of no examples.

To be specific I can't think of a time that #10 have gone out of their way to do something like this, or anything else to directly antagonise Sturgeon.