Brexit Referendum Superthread

Fratton Fred

ambro25 wrote: »

Between your inelegant one-liner to Calina earlier, and now the above, can I just ask: are you drunk, or otherwise impaired all of a sudden?

Because your replies lately make about as much sense as treacle.

Let me know when it's safe to resume normal service.

You're posts jump around and mix points up. Simple short answers seem to be the best way to keep you in track.

Macron has mentioned renegotiating the border control agreement. This will cause problems to all three parties to the agreement. More for the British, but it will cause unnecessary delays and added immigration checks in Lille, Paris and Brussels, no?

I'm not sure if you've been to Lille, but it is a tiny station, where are they going to handle arrival passport checks there, before passengers board trains to elsewhere in France?

It hasn't exactly been thought out has it, which is why it seems to be Macron making populist promises he will struggle to keep.

Water John

Whatever about those logistic points about France, certainly Brexit and the consequences has not been thought out, or possibly admitted on the British side.

Professor Moriarty

This is how British people have been conditioned to believe that the Little Englanders are right to lead them out of Europe and send Johnny Foreigner packing with a flea in his ear. The British media is a nasty joke. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/02/germany-interfering-general-election-undermine-theresa-may/

Nate--IRL--

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

This is how British people have been conditioned to believe that the Little Englanders are right to lead them out of Europe and send Johnny Foreigner packing with a flea in his ear. The British media is a nasty joke. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/02/germany-interfering-general-election-undermine-theresa-may/

That comments section....Jesus.

Nate

steddyeddy

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

This is how British people have been conditioned to believe that the Little Englanders are right to lead them out of Europe and send Johnny Foreigner packing with a flea in his ear. The British media is a nasty joke. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/02/germany-interfering-general-election-undermine-theresa-may/

Also known as the Torygraph over here. A rag akin to the Daily Mail. Look at the comments section as a measure of the type of person who buys this.

steddyeddy

The Telegraph reminds me that the other demographic that voted for Brexit were the middle class Tory voter. They were voting for nostalgia of a Britain that has long passed.

Sam Russell

steddyeddy wrote: »

The Telegraph reminds me that the other demographic that voted for Brexit were the middle class Tory voter. They were voting for nostalgia of a Britain that has long passed.

They were voting for nostalgia of a Britain that never was, well not since before the Boer War.

BlitzKrieg

https://twitter.com/jackmcd83/status/859310132513169408

a convenient example of what your dealing with when it comes to the telegraph.

Zubeneschamali

steddyeddy wrote: »

Is there anyone still saying the UK will be better off post Brexit?

The govt estimated it would cost 3-6% of GDP, if I recall correctly. Various other people said it would come at a price, but one worth paying.

Was anyone serious saying that before? The only ones I remember were the liars in the Leave campaign, and they ran away from their claims immediately after the result.

steddyeddy

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The govt estimated it would cost 3-6% of GDP, if I recall correctly. Various other people said it would come at a price, but one worth paying.

Was anyone serious saying that before? The only ones I remember were the liars in the Leave campaign, and they ran away from their claims immediately after the result.

6% of GDP is very conservative. Especially if they don't get passporting rights for the financial sector.

Zubeneschamali

steddyeddy wrote: »

6% of GDP is very conservative. Especially if they don't get passporting rights for the financial sector.

OK, but my point is they were not predicting the UK would be better off economically. I have not seen any serious predictions of a net gain since the result.

Nody

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Macron has mentioned renegotiating the border control agreement. This will cause problems to all three parties to the agreement. More for the British, but it will cause unnecessary delays and added immigration checks in Lille, Paris and Brussels, no?

You mean beyond the controls already in place as UK was not pat of the Schengen agreement in the first place? Sorry to bust your bubble but no matter what the delays etc. will be the same no matter where the controls are for the simple reason UK will become third party country and need all controls that come with it

I'm not sure if you've been to Lille, but it is a tiny station, where are they going to handle arrival passport checks there, before passengers board trains to elsewhere in France?

They will add a passport control because as UK becomes a third party country that will legally be required. Same way it will be required to add passport controls and goods checks for anything going out of UK into Europe to any port as UK no longer complies with the EU regulations (UK will not have the rights to confirm if their goods meet EU requirement which would fall under ECJ regulation when May crashes out hard and will need to get it done in EU and then get said document over to the customs).

You appear to think that France removing the checks on their side is some huge constraint or added complexity for France; in reality they along with the rest of EU need to add those controls simply because UK becomes a third party country ala Nigeria or Venezuela. The streamlining of not having immigrant camps on the French side by removing it is simply a bonus because the controls will need to go up no matter what.

ambro25

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You're posts jump around and mix points up. Simple short answers seem to be the best way to keep you in track. <...>

Given that you're the only poster to complain about my posts so far, I'll put that down to doing something right, then.

And yes please, I'd like some fries with that condescending.

Nody wrote: »

You mean beyond the controls already in place as UK was not pat of the Schengen agreement in the first place? Sorry to bust your bubble but no matter what the delays etc. will be the same no matter where the controls are for the simple reason UK will become third party country and need all controls that come with it

They will add a passport control because as UK becomes a third party country that will legally be required. Same way it will be required to add passport controls and goods checks for anything going out of UK into Europe to any port as UK no longer complies with the EU regulations (UK will not have the rights to confirm if their goods meet EU requirement which would fall under ECJ regulation when May crashes out hard and will need to get it done in EU and then get said document over to the customs).

You appear to think that France removing the checks on their side is some huge constraint or added complexity for France; in reality they along with the rest of EU need to add those controls simply because UK becomes a third party country ala Nigeria or Venezuela. The streamlining of not having immigrant camps on the French side by removing it is simply a bonus because the controls will need to go up no matter what.

I posted a detailed reply to Fred last night essentially along the above lines, but the server Ooops-page'd me when I submitted, and I wasn't ready to retype it all, so have a thanks Nody [:)]

What I'll retype now is, in respect of customs control aboard trains, that the standard is for custom officers (with or without dogs/sniffers) to board trains at the first stop after a border and check people's papers (i.e. entitlement to enter the country) seat by seat whilst the train is underway to its next stop, exactly as a train controller would for tickets (disembarking passengers would get checked inside the station). No additional delay of any sort.

That was the standard practice pre-Schengen, and it's currently practice (regular, although not every-time-on-the-dot) again in northern France under the ongoing emergency state provisions. My brother is a "frontalier" (lives in France, works in Lux) and commutes by train (mostly) or car (rarely) every day, and regularly goes through these motions. He's rarely ever been controlled by Lux customs officers going into Lux, and certainly never by French customs officers when leaving France.

By way of disclaimer/background, I grew up in the tri-border area of north eastern France (FRA-LUX-DE) in the 70s and 80s long before Schengen and, in the late 80s and early 90s, lived in France, worked in Luxembourg, frequently shopped in Belgium and often as not went on the lash in Germany (all within a 40-ish mile radius), before moving on further, with stints in Ireland and the UK over the last 24 years, all along traipsing back to France at least bi-annually by car or train, through the Chunnel or via ferries, directly or via Belgium and Luxembourg.

Suffice to say, Fred doesn't appear to have much practical knowledge or experience of border controls past or present, save perhaps going through the landside/airside at international airports (which doesn't bear much commonality with controls at <actual> border crossings). They've been a staple experience throughout my entire life, and still are.

steddyeddy

Sam Russell wrote: »

They were voting for nostalgia of a Britain that never was, well not since before the Boer War.

Britain joined the single market in order to increase its economy. It's that simple. Now they voted to leave in order to revert back their post WW2 economy.

Fratton Fred

ambro25 wrote: »

Given that you're the only poster to complain about my posts so far, I'll put that down to doing something right, then.

its an echo chamber. Say the right things, no one complains. Disagree with any points and you are considered the devil's spawn.

ambro25 wrote: »

I posted a detailed reply to Fred last night essentially along the above lines, but the server Ooops-page'd me when I submitted, and I wasn't ready to retype it all, so have a thanks Nody [:)]

What I'll retype now is, in respect of customs control aboard trains, that the standard is for custom officers (with or without dogs/sniffers) to board trains at the first stop after a border and check people's papers (i.e. entitlement to enter the country) seat by seat whilst the train is underway to its next stop, exactly as a train controller would for tickets (disembarking passengers would get checked inside the station). No additional delay of any sort.

That was the standard practice pre-Schengen, and it's currently practice (regular, although not every-time-on-the-dot) again in northern France under the ongoing emergency state provisions. My brother is a "frontalier" (lives in France, works in Lux) and commutes by train (mostly) or car (rarely) every day, and regularly goes through these motions. He's rarely ever been controlled by Lux customs officers going into Lux, and certainly never by French customs officers when leaving France.

By way of disclaimer/background, I grew up in the tri-border area of north eastern France (FRA-LUX-DE) in the 70s and 80s long before Schengen and, in the late 80s and early 90s, lived in France, worked in Luxembourg, frequently shopped in Belgium and often as not went on the lash in Germany (all within a 40-ish mile radius), before moving on further, with stints in Ireland and the UK over the last 24 years, all along traipsing back to France at least bi-annually by car or train, through the Chunnel or via ferries, directly or via Belgium and Luxembourg.

Suffice to say, Fred doesn't appear to have much practical knowledge or experience of border controls past or present, save perhaps going through the landside/airside at international airports (which doesn't bear much commonality with controls at <actual> border crossings). They've been a staple experience throughout my entire life, and still are.

ok, so I have only done the train six or so times, the ferry several dozen and le shuttle four or five and I haven't crossed since the emergency measures were put in place. I haven't crossed borders internally int he Schengen area either, not that it is relevant, because the UK isn't in the Schengen zone.

Currently, you do Schengen checks in London, correct? you then travel to Lille or wherever and you can just jump on the next train to anywhere you like within the Schengen zone, correct?

Remove the juxtaposed controls and then everyone arriving at Lille, Paris, Brussels, Marseille or wherever will have to go through Schengen controls somewhere along the way, correct? By which time, of course, those people are already in the country and the problem of the French.

So, effectively, the current advantage of hopping off at Lille and waiting for the next SNCF train will be gone.

You've then got the added hassle of driving off le shuttle and rather than just hitting the motorway, joining a queue with the hundreds of other motorists who have disembarked the train to go through Schengen checks. as opposed to doing all of these on Folkstone prior to getting on the train.

It isn't reducing the load for anyone, because exit checks have to be carried out in both countries, it is just doubling the effort and adding delays.

It's not going to happen, it works fine at the moment and there will be no need to change it. it is a simple piece of vote grabbing by Macron.

Fratton Fred

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

This is how British people have been conditioned to believe that the Little Englanders are right to lead them out of Europe and send Johnny Foreigner packing with a flea in his ear. The British media is a nasty joke. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/02/germany-interfering-general-election-undermine-theresa-may/

have you considered that the Telegraph may be right?

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

have you considered that the Telegraph may be right?

How is she interfering?

Professor Moriarty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

have you considered that the Telegraph may be right?

I have considered that possibility and I have concluded that that it is just another article in the long line of articles in the Tory Little Englander press that twist and distort the truth into a very one-sided jingoistic narrative.

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

How is she interfering?

that was a very public leak, which lets face it, wasn't an accident.

It may not be interfering in the election, but it was certainly done to undermine the UK government.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

that was a very public leak, which lets face it, wasn't an accident.

It may not be interfering in the election, but it was certainly done to undermine the UK government.

Ah right I didn't know that was what you're talking about. I don't agree with the leak myself. Seemed like a dirty tactic but I think it undermines the UK rather than interfere in the election.

mickoneill31

Fratton Fred wrote: »

have you considered that the Telegraph may be right?

Why would they bother interfering with the UK election?
Whoever is in power won't make much difference to the EU. Maybe somebody else could negotiate a better deal but May is going to be the PM if they interfere or not.
The election only allows May more control inside the UK to accept or reject whatever deal is made. It doesn't give her any more or less power in the EU whatever the election results are.

So what would the EU get by interfering with the UK election?

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ah right I didn't know that was what you're talking about. I don't agree with the leak myself. Seemed like a dirty tactic but I think it undermines the UK rather than interfere in the election.

the papers will spin it whichever way suits their agenda. The Torygraph will see it as interfering with the election, the Guardian will see it as confirmation the Tories are evil and incompetent.

murphaph

Fratton Fred wrote: »

its an echo chamber. Say the right things, no one complains. Disagree with any points and you are considered the devil's spawn.



ok, so I have only done the train six or so times, the ferry several dozen and le shuttle four or five and I haven't crossed since the emergency measures were put in place. I haven't crossed borders internally int he Schengen area either, not that it is relevant, because the UK isn't in the Schengen zone.

Currently, you do Schengen checks in London, correct? you then travel to Lille or wherever and you can just jump on the next train to anywhere you like within the Schengen zone, correct?

Remove the juxtaposed controls and then everyone arriving at Lille, Paris, Brussels, Marseille or wherever will have to go through Schengen controls somewhere along the way, correct? By which time, of course, those people are already in the country and the problem of the French.

So, effectively, the current advantage of hopping off at Lille and waiting for the next SNCF train will be gone.

You've then got the added hassle of driving off le shuttle and rather than just hitting the motorway, joining a queue with the hundreds of other motorists who have disembarked the train to go through Schengen checks. as opposed to doing all of these on Folkstone prior to getting on the train.

It isn't reducing the load for anyone, because exit checks have to be carried out in both countries, it is just doubling the effort and adding delays.

It's not going to happen, it works fine at the moment and there will be no need to change it. it is a simple piece of vote grabbing by Macron.

I agree with you that France will leave this all as is as long as it's kosher to perform Schengen passport checks in a third country.

Fratton Fred

mickoneill31 wrote: »

Why would they bother interfering with the UK election?
Whoever is in power won't make much difference to the EU. Maybe somebody else could negotiate a better deal but May is going to be the PM if they interfere or not.
The election only allows May more control inside the UK to accept or reject whatever deal is made. It doesn't give her any more or less power in the EU whatever the election results are.

So what would the EU get by interfering with the UK election?

as i said above,maybe not interfering in the election ( but lets face it, they'd much rather deal with Corbyn then May) but they seem to be constantly undermining the UK's position, claiming that they don't understand the process.

But does anyone? no one has left the eu before, so this is the first for everyone. Where does this figure of anywhere between €60 and €100bn come from? The eu budget only runs to 2020, so how come the uk is expected to pay eight years worth of net contributions? They talk about pensions ( of which the UK is liable for 12%), but does the eu really have hundreds of billions worth of pension liabilities?

Fratton Fred

murphaph wrote: »

I agree with you that France will leave this all as is as long as it's kosher to perform Schengen passport checks in a third country.

I don't think it is actually a third country, it is technically French soil, like pre clearance in Dublinairport is carried out on US turf.

seamus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

that was a very public leak, which lets face it, wasn't an accident.

It may not be interfering in the election, but it was certainly done to undermine the UK government.

I guess it depends on your viewpoint.

Is it "interfering" for any body to release factual information on a topic that is politically relevant?

Surely "interfering" requires an intention to take part in the affairs?

A leak published to the German press and published in German doesn't seem very intentional. Sure, they would have known other agencies would pick it up and interpret it - but they can't not release information on the basis that someone somewhere else may see it.

"Interfering" would be an open letter from the EU published in the British media. Or a TV campaign discussing why Teresa May hasn't got a rashers what she's doing.

A report discussing Brexit published in a foreign press, cannot be "interfering", even if every British paper chooses to pick it up and rebroadcast it.

This the new global reality that clearly the British media and the British public have failed to come to terms with.

The whole world doesn't revolve around the UK; the Germans or the French or whoever, are entitled to discuss Brexit internally and externally. If the British media choose to re-broadcast that information, that's up to them. The rest of us aren't required to walk on eggshells for fear of exposing the British public to the "wrong" information.

Rightwing

This is going to get nasty, relations will deteriorate badly.

Fratton Fred

seamus wrote: »

I guess it depends on your viewpoint.

Is it "interfering" for any body to release factual information on a topic that is politically relevant?

Surely "interfering" requires an intention to take part in the affairs?

A leak published to the German press and published in German doesn't seem very intentional. Sure, they would have known other agencies would pick it up and interpret it - but they can't not release information on the basis that someone somewhere else may see it.

"Interfering" would be an open letter from the EU published in the British media. Or a TV campaign discussing why Teresa May hasn't got a rashers what she's doing.

A report discussing Brexit published in a foreign press, cannot be "interfering", even if every British paper chooses to pick it up and rebroadcast it.

This the new global reality that clearly the British media and the British public have failed to come to terms with.

The whole world doesn't revolve around the UK; the Germans or the French or whoever, are entitled to discuss Brexit internally and externally. If the British media choose to re-broadcast that information, that's up to them. The rest of us aren't required to walk on eggshells for fear of exposing the British public to the "wrong" information.

I guess they could have issued the "Leak" in several different languages, to several different agencies, but then that would have been a press release, not a leak.

This was apparent direct quotes from a private meeting. This was a strategic leak, that is pretty obvious and the use of terms such as "Deluded" only serve to undermine the other party.

Maybe the eu is scared and is resorting to dirty tactics. Who knows.

Water John

It's just a bit of shadow boxing before getting down to business.
Mainly about giving UK a dose of reality.

johnnyskeleton

Mod Note:

This is not the forum for gif drops, funny images etc.