Plenty of mood music but little of substance

Prime Minister Theresa May delivered her long-awaited Brexit speech in Florence last Friday. By now, many of our readers will have had ample opportunity to read both the text of the speech itself and the verdict of all and sundry.

In summary, Mrs May gave a speech which attempted to reassert her leadership of the Brexit process. In the recent negotiations, David Davis has received far more coverage than the Prime Minister, while Boris Johnson’s article in the Sunday Telegraph a week ago was interpreted by some as a leadership bid and an attempt to upstage her. Reports of splits within the Cabinet over the shape of Brexit also made it imperative for the PM to stamp her authority and show to the world that she was not a lame duck presiding over a fractious, chaotic government.

So what did she say? That dreadful phrase “deep and special” which regrettably permeates so many government position papers, appeared twice. Was the speech written by the same person who devised the equally awful “strong and stable” mantra which  proved so unconvincing to the UK electorate last June?  Of course, particularly in a speech like this, a certain amount of diplomacy is necessary, but we are going through a divorce with the EU and the idea that divorcees are likely to want a “deep and special” relationship after ending an uncomfortable relationship stretching back more than forty years  is, quite frankly, ludicrous.

This irritating phrase apart, the mood music was pretty good. Although Mrs May campaigned for the remain side, albeit with little enthusiasm, she articulated the reasons why we voted to leave very clearly and succinctly. “The strength of feeling that the British people have about this need for control and the direct accountability of their politicians is one reason why, throughout its membership, the United Kingdom has never totally felt at home being in the European Union.

And perhaps because of our history and geography, the European Union never felt to us like an integral part of our national story in the way it does to so many elsewhere in Europe…..So the British electorate made a choice. They chose the power of domestic democratic control over pooling that control, strengthening the role of the UK Parliament and the devolved Scottish Parliament, Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies in deciding our laws. That is our choice.

Absolutely. All the same, even those – including some within Mrs May’s own Parliamentary party – whose loathing for the EU goes so deep that they hope it will collapse, cannot escape the fact that we cannot and should not cut ourselves off from our neighbours on the continent. “But what we do want – and what we hope that you, our European friends, want too – is to stay as partners who carry on working together for our mutual benefit.

All well and good, but when it came to the details of how this partnership is to work, detail was very sketchy. Mrs May acknowledged the need for a two-year transition period, but didn’t say what sort of transitional arrangement she was seeking, except to rule out EEA membership:- “European Economic Area membership would mean the UK having to adopt at home – automatically and in their entirety – new EU rules. Rules over which, in future, we will have little influence and no vote. Such a loss of democratic control could not work for the British people.”

Not that accurate although at least consistent with earlier statements. This does pose the question as to what Mrs May is proposing instead. Richard North is quite correct to point out that whether you are talking about an interim deal or a permanent arrangement, there are only three options:- the “no agreement” (or WTO) route, EEA membership or a bespoke bilateral trade deal. The last appears to be the preferred choice for a long-term arrangement, even if Mrs May has ruled out using the EU-Canada deal as a model, but if it can’t be concluded before March 2019, it doesn’t leave us with many options for the transitional deal. The only insight we have gained form this speech is that Mrs May seems to have recognised that any free trade agreement with the EU would require some sort of umpire or mutually acceptable superior authority – rather like the EFTA court.

The time factor is crucial in all this, especially as our team has agreed to the EU’s negotiating schedule, which insists that satisfactory progress must be made on the rights of EU citizens in the UK, the Irish border issue and the “Divorce bill” before trading arrangements can be discussed. Mrs May had hinted earlier in the week that an offer of at least €20 billion was likely to be on the table.  In her speech on Friday, she emphasized her commitment to securing a deal which will allow EU citizens currently residing in the UK to remain and added that as far as the Irish border issue was concerned,  “We and the EU have committed to protecting the Belfast Agreement and the Common Travel Area and, looking ahead, we have both stated explicitly that we will not accept any physical infrastructure at the border. We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland – and indeed to everyone on the island of Ireland – to see through these commitments.”

The conciliatory tone of the speech elicited some positive comment from senior EU figures, with Michel Barnier describing it as “a step forward” but highlighted the lack of detail. France’s President Macron welcomed the UK’s willingness to move forward, but he and other European figures joined Barnier in bemoaning the absence of clarity. Leo Varadkar, the Irish Taoiseach, sounded more positive after threatening to block the next stage of the Brexit talks a few days earlier.

Reaction from the UK has been varied. “Leave will effectively mean stay” said an unenthusiastic Dr Peter Mullen. Richard North  called the speech “Empty rhetoric” and poured scorn on her claim that “we can do better than this” following references to the EU/Canada deal and the EEA agreement. Richard Tice of Leave.eu said “I fear Theresa May has now given the EU no incentive to agree to anything”. Brian Monteith of Global Britain was somewhat more positive, insisting that “it is not the sellout that so many of her critics who are rushing to judge allege.”

The most telling comment,  though, comes from Michel Barnier in a speech which anticipated Mrs May’s. Just one short sentence:- “At midnight on 29 March 2019, the United Kingdom will leave the European Union and will become a third country.” That’s the rules. No special treatment. The treaties cease to apply and a new relationship of some kind or other will replace our membership of the EU. He went on to say “I would like to be very clear: if we are to extend for a limited period the acquis of the EU, with all its benefits, then logically “this would require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judiciary and enforcement instruments and structures to apply” as recalled in the mandate I received from the European Council, under the authority of President Donald Tusk.” In other words, the only sort of transition he could imagine taking Mrs May’s words at face value would, in effect, be a postponement of Brexit, which would clearly be unacceptable to many MPs in Mrs May’s own party, let alone the wider Brexit-supporting community.

In conclusion, while Mrs May’s speech was peppered with good intentions, its most disturbing feature is that it could easily have been made a year ago. What has been going on behind the scenes in the last few months? As M. Barnier has pointed out, the clock is ticking and Brexit day draws ever closer. There is a great deal of detail to clarify and precious little time in which to do it. We must not stay in, we cannot crash out and all the obvious alternatives have been rejected. What exactly, then, is the route which Mrs May, David Davis and their colleagues suggest we take in order to arrive safely on Brexit day still able fully to function as a country?  We would all love to know.

Government future position paper – cross-border civil and judicial cooperation framework

This Government Position paper, like some others which have been published,  is annoying vague on detail and repeats the silly phrase “deep and special” which has featured in some of the earlier papers.  It is a rather soppy and meaningless phrase which seeks to gloss over the fact that 15 months ago, we voted to leave because we wanted a looser relationship with the EU – it was far too “deep”.

It is self-evident that some form of cooperation with the EU on legal matters will be essential. Civil law (as opposed to criminal) includes, among other things, trade disputes, family issues and cases of insolvency and in today’s world, differing parties may well reside in different countries.

The document reiterates the point which the government has made on a number of previous occasions – we will be leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice as it derives its authority from the EU treaties which will no longer apply after Brexit. Fair enough, but what follows is basically a wish list, which points out that as the UK has signed up to a number of international agreements on civil judicial cooperation but nonetheless reverts to the oft-repeated hope that as we are starting from “an unprecedented position of close integration”, coming up with a deal shouldn’t be too hard. All the same, the authors of the document are sufficiently aware of the complexities of securing a new arrangement to suggest that  the UK “would benefit from an interim period that allowed for a smooth and orderly move from our current relationship to our future partnership.”

One detail worthy of note is the statement in Paragraph 22 that “we will seek to continue to participate in the Lugano Convention that, by virtue of our membership of the EU, forms the basis for the UK’s civil judicial cooperation with Norway, Iceland and Switzerland.” The Lugano Convention, however, states that courts from contracting parties to the Convention should take into consideration judgements made by the European Court of Justice. Taking something into consideration isn’t the same as being bound by it, but even so, there does seem to be some ambiguity here given how keen the Government has been to emphasise that Brexit will bring the ECJ’s authority to an end in the country.

What is more, the paper is keen to talk of similarity when it is the differences between UK and continental legal systems which are more of greater significance. The differences are more noteworthy when it comes to criminal justice but even so, the foundations of all UK law are  different from most of those on the Continent. Even as an EU member state, the UK is a popular choice for international civil disputes because of the clarity of its legal system. London is as important a centre for legal services as for financial, as this article makes clear. The Government’s Position Paper cites the Queen Mary  Study which states that:-

  • 30%  of international contracts are governed by English Law – second place Swiss with 9%
  • 40% of international arbitrations are in London – 7% in New York.

The rest of the world believes that English Law is superior to Civil (European, Code Napoleon jurisdictions) Law, but the British Government is not prepared to back English Law (the Common Law: the law of India, the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Hong Kong, etc.) which is preferred internationally because English Law provides certainty.

Even some French and German multinationals prefer to make their  contracts subject to English law (even when contacting with parties in their own country) because English Law provides certainty.

If the the British Government allows European Law to override English law, then London will cease  to be the number one destination for international arbitrations, which will also result in ancillary job losses (e.g. , insurance (Lloyds and, P and I Clubs), finance, legal, scientific and expert services).

The British Government needs to realise that it is English Law which is largely responsible for the primacy of the City of London, because the world believes that contracts made in the U.K. will be fairly enforced, and should not allow European Law to subvert English Law.

We can but hope that the significant role played by our capital city will continue after Brexit. Unfortunately, the Govenrment paper has offered us much reassurance on this subject nor offered many clues on how we will cooperate with the EU on cross-border civil issues.

The parallel universe next door

For anyone wanting to take the EU’s temperature, the annual “State of the Union” address by the President of the European Commission is always a helpful speech to study. Anyone wanting to read the full 6,130 words of Jean-Claude Juncker’s lengthy talk can do so here.

However, most of us will only want a brief summary. As far as Brexit is concerned, Juncker had very little to say. He called it “a very sad and tragic moment,” adding “We will always regret it.” The text of the speech does not include the phrase “and you will regret it soon”, although this extract from the speech shows that he clearly said these words (in French) and also added that Brexit isn’t the future of Europe.

Will we regret it? On the basis of the rest of the speech, I think not. Open Europe, hardly a bastion of withdrawalism in pre-referendum days says that the speech is “likely to test the limits of what EU citizens or even EU leaders might support. Juncker admitted that 2016 was “a year  that shook our very foundations” – in other words, a crisis. What is the classic EU solution for any crisis? More Europe, and yes, this is exactly what he is proposing:- an increase in qualified majority voting – or to put it another way, the removal of national vetoes – in foreign policy decisions and in maters of taxation, a European Finance minister  and elections for the European Parliament featuring trans-national rather than national lists. Treaty change is “inevitable” at some point, he added, but in the meanwhile, use should be made of the so-called “passerelle” clauses in the existing treaties which allow qualified majority voting to be extended without treaty amendment. Juncker does not want a two-speed Europe, but by stating that the Parliament of the €urozone is the European Parliament, he is forcing non-€urozone countries either to join the Single Currency or accept second class status.

It is hardly surprising that Pieter Cleppe of Open Europe says that “This was not a great speech for those hoping the European Commission would see Brexit as the moment to take stock and reconnect with those across Europe who feel that the EU has over-reached.” Reaction from the UK has been more scathing. Diane James, formerly a UKIP MEP but now sitting as an independent, wrote a scathing article for City AM which pours scorn on the upbeat assessment of the EU’s current state by Mr Juncker. ” I can sum up the “state of the Union” in one word: dismal.” She points out that 66 per cent of Europeans stated in a recent survey that they were dissatisfied by the direction being taken by Brussels. The EU may be putting pressure on us to try to stop Brexit, or at lest to water it down, but many citizens in EU-27 are hardly happy bunnies and Juncker’s speech will have done nothing to make them feel better.  The powers-that-be in Brussels seem to be living in a parallel universe from most ordinary people.

Nigel Farage was even more scathing in his response to Juncker’s speech when addressing the European Parliament. “All I can say is Thank God we’re leaving,” he said. Lord Stoddart, a former President of CIB, was equally dismissive, calling Juncker’s vision of the EU as a “nightmare”.

Indeed. Juncker’s speech will have reminded many of us of exactly why we campaigned for years – indeed, in some cases, decades – to extricate our country from the EU. Given that there are still many tensions between the member states simmering beneath the surface, Juncker’s speech has, if anything, made it more likely that another country may well follow us out of the door.

 

The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill 3:- fisheries shows the need for exemptions

The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill was designed to ensure that life continues as normal the day we leave the EU.  In an earlier post, we explained the rationale behind this bill. While Labour in particular is concerned about the “repatriated” legislation being tweaked for political ends, a far more serious problem concerns legislation which will need tweaking because of the new status of the UK as an independent sovereign nation outside the EU. Indeed, the degree of tweaking required for some legislation which does not concern merely domestic issues is so great that we believe that it is best that there should be exemptions included in the Great Repeal Bill – in other words, replacement legislation should come into force on Brexit day and the regulation, decision or directive  in question should not be put onto the statute books at all.

Regulation 1380/2013 is the main piece of EU legislation which governs the Common Fisheries Policy. Leaving the EU will free us from this iniquitous, environmentally damaging piece of legislation which has wrought havoc to our fishing industry.  All we have to do is exempt this one single Regulation from the EU (Withdrawal) Bill and our fishermen will be freed from control by Brussels. Even if no agreement on fishing is signed by Brexit day, this would be better than the current set-up. We would find ourselves excluded from EU waters, but the exclusion of EU vessels from our Exclusive Economic Zone (up to 200 nautical miles from the shoreline, or the median point where the sea is less than 400 nautical miles wide) would be more than a compensation.

In other words, unlike customs arrangements, trade in goods and services or mutual recognition of standards, fisheries is one area where we really don’t have to worry if there is no agreement with the EU by 29th March 2019. We would revert to UN guidelines which would allow us to manage our own waters.

So the current plans by the government to include Regulation 1380/2013 make no sense whatsoever – all the more when analysis of the actual document shows that a massive re-write would be needed before it could be incorporated into UK law or else a tremendous muddle would ensue. You only have to go as far as paragraph (2) on the first page before encountering the terms “Union waters” and “Union fishing vessels.” At the moment, these terms refer to the boats and EEZs of all EU28 countries – at least, all those which have a coastline and therefore a maritime fishing industry. On Brexit day, the term will mean something different as phrase containing the word “Union” will refer to EU27 – in other words, not the UK.

Read on to paragraphs (3) and (4) on the same page and they talk about the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy. Unless the government wants us to be in the CFP even though we will be out of the EU, these two paragraphs can be struck through as irrelevant.

Paragraph (5) begins by mentioning “the Union”. Well, we happen to be a signatory to the same UN agreement, so perhaps our Civil Servants can just cross this out and put in “the UK” instead. Sadly, it’s not that simple. Read on a few lines and you come across a reference to a decision by the EU Council. That doesn’t apply to us any more so that needs to be changed.

Given the document is 40 pages long, I won’t bore you with going through the other pages in detail, but the absurdity of repatriating this Regulation must already be apparent. Every reference to “union”, “member states” “Commission” and so on will need alteration. Why bother with a piece of legislation which is so flawed? Scroll through it in its entirety and there are numerous references to quotas. UK fishermen do not want a quota system on independence. Our booklet Seizing the Moment,written by John Ashworth of Fishing for Leave proposes a “days-at-sea” basis, modelled on Faeroese practise, which is far better than any quota system for preventing discards, while at the same time enables a much better management of the environment.

Three further objections to the incorporation of this Regulation into the EU (Withdrawal) Bill should, however, be mentioned. Firstly, the final 12 pages comprise an annex listing the access to coastal waters by different member states. This obviously includes the UK’s territorial waters which the Government indicated it intended to return to UK control by denouncing the 1964 London Convention.  If these pages are included, then the good done by doing this is essentially undone and the government would have broken a promise.

Secondly, this Regulation is the latest of a series of regulations enshrining the UK’s 10-year derogration restricting access to the waters up to 12 nautical miles from the shore, which currently expires on 31st December 2022. If the Regulation is included in UK law featuring any wording implying that restricting access to any part of the waters around the UK is subject to agreement with Brussels, then we have in effect granted the EU a right to continue dictating who may or may not fish in our waters. This is unacceptable.

Finally, if anything resembling Regulation 1380/2013 ends up on the UK statute books after Brexit, even if it has been heavily amended, it will be scrutinised in minute detail by, among others, the French, who will seek to find any opportunity they can to take us to an international court and challenge our decision to repatriate our fishing policy.  Given that so much of this document needs to be deleted or amended to make any sense and that there is plenty of scope for ambiguity creeping in, the threat of a legal challenge adds still further to the reasons for saying that excluding it from the EU (Withdrawal) Bill in its entirety is the only sensible approach to take. Fishing for Leave has the expertise to devise a fishing policy in 18 months – one which will revitalise our coastal communities after years of decline. If even a heavily amended version of this Regulation finds its way onto the UK statute books, it will not be truly Brexit for an industry that has campaigned so long for the return of fisheries to UK control. Given the appalling way in which previous Conservative governments have betrayed our fishermen, this present administration must not be allowed to bungle this great opportunity to right an historic wrong. Thankfully, one Conservative MP has already flagged up the potential problems a bungled fisheries Brexit would cause. We can but hope his colleagues will take heed.

 

The European Union (withdrawal) Bill 2:- Power grab?

In the first article looking at the European Union Withdrawal Bill, we set out the principle behind it but pointed out that it was impossible for EU regulations and directives to be transferred verbatim onto out statute books. As an example, we used one of the shortest and indeed, most pointless of all Regulations,  the so-called “Cuddly Toy Sheep” Regulation 1462/2006.

The object of this regulation is pretty simple  – that the toy in question may be given the appropriate  classification code for customs purposes. If we were to use the same codes on Brexit and use similar customs checking processes, transposition of this law into domestic law ought to be pretty simple. We remove all references to the Commission, the Treaties and references to Member states, extract the important bits, find a new template, perhaps even using the relevant bits of a piece of pre-1973 legislation, change a few words here and there and Bob’s your uncle! All done.

Actually, no. The Regulation we have been using as an example cross-references another Regulation 2913/92. This reference will have to be changed. Then the regulation which is cross-referenced talks about the Community Customs Code. Even if we were to be as foolish as to seek some sort of customs union with the EU, which we argued was very unwise, this bit will need to be re-worked as the term “Community Customs Code” would not be appropriate to describe the customs arrangements of an ex-member state.

So it is quite apparent that even a simple piece of EU legislation which our Government may wish to retain in a way that it works after Brexit exactly as it did before will need to be re-written in places. Given that in October 2015, the EU acquis amounted to 23,076 pieces of legislation and has grown further since, it is very apparent that our teams of Civil Servants will have a massive task on their hands  if everything will be ready for Brexit day.

If this concept is relatively straightforward to explain, a more complex issue is concept of the superiority of EU law over domestic legislation.  Our accession to the European Union granted power to the EU to introduce or amend legislation superior over British law “without further enactment.” (These three words come verbatim from the European Communities Act 1972.) On leaving the EU, what status do EU laws have relative to earlier domestic legislation? This is not an easy question to answer, even if you are a lawyer.

The concern among both Opposition MPs and the devolved assemblies in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Northern Ireland is that a combination of the re-writing process and the complexity of any new relationship between legislation which originated in Westminster and that which was passed down to us from Brussels will actually change the make-up of our statute books without Parliament being consulted or even being aware.  In other words, the Government  will use the EU (Withdrawal) Bill as an opportunity to further its own political agenda without requiring Parliamentary scrutiny. It certainly does appear to  strengthen the hand of the executive, rather than Parliament, because of the delegated powers it contains.

At the heart of this so-called “power grab” is the use of the Statutory Instrument – a facility which, in certain situations allows the government to make or amend legislation without Parliament having he power to change or even debate it. Given that MPs are our elected representatives, the very existence of anything which allows the democratic process to be bypassed is unsatisfactory. There is, however, a certain irony in the loudest critics of the use of Statutory Instruments being europhiles – after all they support our EU membership which reduced the power of Westminster. Ken Clarke famously said in 1996 ““I look forward to the day when the Westminster Parliament is just a council chamber in Europe” so any new-found commitment to Parliamentary democracy is somewhat hypocritical given the real loyalties of Europhile MPs lie in Brussels, not Westminster.

There is no doubt that Brexit provides us with an opportunity to re-boot our complete democratic process and indeed, this needs to go well beyond giving Parliament greater opportunity to hold the government to account by strengthening its powers of scrutiny. Our democratic process should be re-vamped to give us, the people, greater power over the people we elect to represent us and ot hold them to account if they, individually or collectively, do a bad job.

But that is for the future. The immediate concern of groups like Unlock Democracy is that the sheer complexity of repatriating EU law is that some legislation derived from EU Regulations and Directives may be weakened or lose its force completely. There is another possibility that the amount of work required in re-working all this legislation will end up with ambiguities more by accident than design.

The Hansard Society has come up with three proposals which at least mitigate these concerns:-

  1.  The EU (Withdrawal) Bill should be amended to circumscribe the powers it delegates more tightly.
  2. A new, bespoke, EU (Withdrawal) Order strengthened scrutiny procedure should be introduced for the exercise of the widest delegated powers
  3. A new House of Commons ‘sift and scrutiny’ system – with a dedicated Delegated Legislation Scrutiny Committee – should be established for all delegated legislation

These are eminently sensible suggestions. The only problem is the timescale. We cannot afford to arrive at Brexit day with any gaping holes in our legal system. To take one obvious example – there will be little if any pre-1973 domestic legislation relating to information technology, the Internet or mobile phones. Massive developments have taken place in these fields since we joined what has become the EU. It is therefore very likely that most of the legislation regulation which govern them comes from the EU. If a given piece of EU legislation slips through the net, some important aspects of day-to-day life for many of us would be completely unregulated.

This piece only scratches at the surface of the complexities our politicians and civil servants face. A huge task lies ahead of them and one which is even more critical than securing a trade deal with the EU.

However given we are talking about well over 20,000 items of legislation, are there some which are so obviously inimical to our interests as an independent, sovereign nation that they should be excluded from the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill altogether? We will consider this subject in the next article.

Immigration:- putting the cart before the horse?

Last week, the Guardian published a leaked draft of a Home Office document entitled  ‘Borders, Immigration and Citizenship System After the UK Leaves the EU’

It contained the welcome news that the Government is determined to bring immigration down and intends to use the opportunities presented by Brexit to honour – albeit rather belatedly – its pledge to bring net migration down below 100,000.

Given the high profile of the immigration issue during last year’s referendum campaign, it is the least the government can do. In summary, free movement will come to an end on Brexit day. A scheme for seasonal workers will allow our fruit to be picked, but work permits will be time-limited, with those for low-skilled workers lasting only two years, with no right to settle. For all new EU workers, the right to bring family members will be significantly curtailed. UK companies will be encouraged to take on UK workers where possible.  Though it does not give precise details, the document says the UK is minded to introduce an income threshold for some EU citizens before they will be allowed to reside here.

It all sounds good in theory. There are good,sound reasons for slashing immigration. The pressure exerted by migrants is making it harder for native Brits to get onto the housing ladder or, in some places, to see a GP or find a place for their children in a local school. The use of short-term work permits will give the government  – and indeed, business – greater flexibility, especially as advances in robotics will drastically shrink the numbers of low-skilled workers required. Some experts suggest that we will have problems finding work for all the current UK working age population within 30 years. We certainly don’t want to saddle ourselves with lots of migrants whose jobs have been taken by machines but who have a right to stay here.

Of course, a Tory party which has found itself on the back foot since the General Election will be keen to do all it can to rebuild its support and there are plenty of voted to be garnered by being tough on immigration.

Yet the welcome given to this document must be tempered with a feeling that the Government is rather putting the cart before the horse. We know what it wants to do about immigration but very little about its proposed relationship with the EU. We would probably be able to implement most these restrictions as a member of EFTA and accessing the Single Market via the EEA agreement and applying restrictions in the same way as Liechtenstein, in spite of claims by one EU official that  “Limits on numbers of people or categories of migrant worker are incompatible with single market access.” They seem to have forgotten this small Alpine country which invalidates their argument.  Likewise, we would certainly be able to restrict migration if we stormed out of the current negotiations and left the EU in March 2019 with no agreement and some commentators are suggesting that this is seriously being considered.

The EFTA route has thus far not been in favour while walking out would be foolish and lead to the “cliff edge” which we are repeatedly being told the Government wishes to avoid. So what, then, is the Brexit framework into which these immigration proposals will fit?

Furthermore, if the Government is serious about reducing net migration below 100,000, what about immigration from outside the EU? The most recent statistics did record a drop in arrivals from EU-27, but arrivals from the rest of the world stood at 266,000 during the same period. The government could act here and now to stem the flow if it so desired. Then what about illegal immigrants? Will the Government finally get serious and deport them?

So while this document is a step in the right direction, a lot of questions remain unanswered.