Brexit discussion thread II

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

So when the Home Office does a spot check on a slaughterhouse they ask everyone for ID, or only those who look/sound foreign?

When all the employees insist they are British citizens so don't need to carry ID, do you retain them all?

It's unworkable without racial profiling (though this may not be illegal in Brexit Britain in a few years).

Here in Germany that spot check would work because almost all the actual German (EU) citizens carry a national ID card and can quickly identify themselves as such and there's an Ausweiflicht (compulsion to be able to identify yourself to a a police officer or face detention) anyway. That's not the case in the UK and makes it very difficult to identify who is legally working on that premises and who is not.

The UK has made lots of wishy washy proposals solo. So far very little concrete anything and this is just another area where the soundbites are evaporating as the reality of implementation becomes apparent.

Good morning!

It sounds like you're not familiar with the UK Government's proposal. It seems like you didn't know that ID will be issued with settled status.

My point is that this is what happens in the UK today.

It's very simple if you want an NI number it won't be given to you until you produce your proof of employment and visa. It won't be issued to you otherwise. Payroll requires an NI number. No number no legitimate work and the Home Office actively clamp down on illegitimate businesses.

Employers are required to inform the Home Office if someone doesn't have the correct visa. Enforcement officers can issue deportation notice at the persons home address. It doesn't need to be at work. If it is at work then they can be brought to their home address to get the documents. Violations are reported. They aren't done on racial profiling.

It's not wishy washy at all. This happens for visa violations today. Biometric visa ID's are issued with all visas including permanent residence and the proposed settled status.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Sam Russell

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It sounds like you're not familiar with the UK Government's proposal. It seems like you didn't know that ID will be issued with settled status.

My point is that this is what happens in the UK today. ly clamp down on illegitimate businesses.
It's very simple if you want an NI number it won't be given to you until you produce your proof of employment and visa. It won't be issued to you otherwise. Payroll requires an NI number. No number no legitimate work and the Home Office active

Employers are required to inform the Home Office if someone doesn't have the correct visa. Enforcement officers can issue deportation notice at the persons home address. It doesn't need to be at work. If it is at work then they can be brought to their home address to get the documents. Violations are reported. They aren't done on racial profiling.

It's not wishy washy at all. This happens for visa violations today. Biometric visa ID's are issued with all visas including permanent residence and the proposed settled status.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

If a Garda stops an Indian looking gentleman and asks for ID and the person says I do not carry ID. The Garda says that he should have his Garda Alien card with him. Man says he does not have one. Garda says he will arrest him, what is his name? Man says 'My name is Leo Varadka'.

Unless everyone carries ID, then those that must carry it are subject to racial profiling or some other form of discrimination. There is no other way. Either it is done by ID or it cannot be anything but discriminatory. I could be a student in the UK with a valid NI number, I leave and return illegally but as I have a NI number, I can work under your system. NI numbers are not a secure method of controlling immigration.

It needs to be thought out again.

Capt'n Midnight

listermint wrote: »

Don't be incredulous, british citizens would just be required to carry their passports to work no need for two id's.

On then other hand IIRC there's six million UK citizens entitled to an Irish passport, through grandparents or spouses.

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

They have already lost almost all of their Empire since 1945 -

Since 1945 ?
Denmark lost Iceland and Greenland. (they even had a Caribbean island during WWI , Sweden had islands there at one stage too )
France lost Algeria and lots of other African colonies. And like the UK lost much in the Middle East. And Indochina.
Italy lost lots of islands in the Med
Portugal lost Goa, Angola, Mozambique , Timor
Holland lost Indonesia.
Spain too lost Africa colonies.
etc.

The Map of Eastern Europe got totally shuffled and all the countries north of Greece got chunks taken out of them , most were taken over too, Finland was emasculated by treaties with the neighbour.


Go back a bit and even Lithuania used to stretch down as far as the Black Sea and over to Kursk. (Further back we had parts of Scotland)



So yeah the UK has reasons to imagine they are a special case. :rolleyes:

Samsung setup a factory in Wales in the 1980's because Welsh workers were cheaper than Koreans. Thanks to the drop in Sterling Welsh workers are now 18% cheaper then they were not so long ago. That's the sort of competitive advantage you'd imagine would send companies flocking to the UK. But they are staying away in droves.

Also
The UK could still loose NI and Scotland (which has half the fishing areas)

"the past is a different country, they do things differently there"
- ancient Klingon proverb

Jim2007

listermint wrote: »

Don't be incredulous, british citizens would just be required to carry their passports to work no need for two id's. Sure two id's would be overkill

Ya about that... a passport is not very convenient to have to carry around all the time. You'll find plenty of complaints about it on most expat forums. At this point all EU but the U.K. have a credit card sized option.

solodeogloria

Sam Russell wrote: »

If a Garda stops an Indian looking gentleman and asks for ID and the person says I do not carry ID. The Garda says that he should have his Garda Alien card with him. Man says he does not have one. Garda says he will arrest him, what is his name? Man says 'My name is Leo Varadka'.

Unless everyone carries ID, then those that must carry it are subject to racial profiling or some other form of discrimination. There is no other way. Either it is done by ID or it cannot be anything but discriminatory. I could be a student in the UK with a valid NI number, I leave and return illegally but as I have a NI number, I can work under your system. NI numbers are not a secure method of controlling immigration.

It needs to be thought out again.

Good morning!

You've misunderstood how the British immigration system works. It's not policed by regular police forces. It's policed by the UK​ Border Force.

Immigration checks aren't conducted on the street based on profiling. The UK Border Force only respond to notification or clear evidence and will check individuals immigration status on either a raid at a premises or at a person's home.

This is how the British immigration system works today for violations in non-EU migrants cases.

This will continue after Brexit with wider scope.

There's no point criticising the British immigration system if you don't understand it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Sam Russell

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

You've misunderstood how the British immigration system works. It's not policed by regular police forces. It's policed by the UK​ Border Force.

Immigration checks aren't conducted on the street based on profiling. The UK Border Force only respond to notification or clear evidence and will check individuals immigration status on either a raid at a premises or at a person's home.

This is how the British immigration system works today for violations in non-EU migrants cases.

This will continue after Brexit with wider scope.

There's no point criticising the British immigration system if you don't understand it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I think you have entirely missed my point.

Whoever has to have some form of identity to prove his immigration status while others do not will be subject to some form of discrimination. In my example, the gentleman quizzed by the Garda was born in Ireland but could, to some eyes, be considered foreign.

Either everyone has to prove ID or you get racial profiling of some sort.

Of course T May will deal with this by leaving the ECtHR, so no come back from there, and of course no ECJ to give a bit of judicial advice.

murphaph

Sam Russell wrote: »

If a Garda stops an Indian looking gentleman and asks for ID and the person says I do not carry ID. The Garda says that he should have his Garda Alien card with him. Man says he does not have one. Garda says he will arrest him, what is his name? Man says 'My name is Leo Varadka'.

Unless everyone carries ID, then those that must carry it are subject to racial profiling or some other form of discrimination. There is no other way. Either it is done by ID or it cannot be anything but discriminatory. I could be a student in the UK with a valid NI number, I leave and return illegally but as I have a NI number, I can work under your system. NI numbers are not a secure method of controlling immigration.

It needs to be thought out again.

Thank you. I thought I was being clear but solo didn't get the problem when I explained it.

IDs can only work without racial profiling (racism) of the entire population is required to be able to identify themselves during spot checks. Simple as that.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

Immigration checks aren't conducted on the street based on profiling. The UK Border Force only respond to notification or clear evidence and will check individuals immigration status on either a raid at a premises or at a person's home.

Which is exactly why it does not work. The UK is a soft touch for illegals because there are so few checks. And even if you are checked, so long as they can't find your passport you can expect to be out on the street again in a few days at the most. The UK immigration problem is one of their own making and continuing to do the same going forward is not going to improve things.

By comparison, here in Switzerland I'm asked to provide my Swiss ID card at least once every year. Immigration will get on a train or a bus and check every single person on the bus or train. Or perhaps it will be the police at a road block or in the train station. And if you are caught, you will not be back out on the streets again.

Billy86

Sam Russell wrote: »

If a Garda stops an Indian looking gentleman and asks for ID and the person says I do not carry ID. The Garda says that he should have his Garda Alien card with him. Man says he does not have one. Garda says he will arrest him, what is his name? Man says 'My name is Leo Varadka'.

Unless everyone carries ID, then those that must carry it are subject to racial profiling or some other form of discrimination. There is no other way. Either it is done by ID or it cannot be anything but discriminatory. I could be a student in the UK with a valid NI number, I leave and return illegally but as I have a NI number, I can work under your system. NI numbers are not a secure method of controlling immigration.

It needs to be thought out again.

There was something similar done (or at least attempted, not sure if it passed) in a few states in the US a few years back that caused uproar, essentially it meant I could be over there illegally and talking to my hypothetical friend John who could be a 4th, 5th, etc generation Hispanic immigrant whose ancestors migrated legally and who was born in the US and lived his whole life there. I would be fine, but John could get locked up for essentially not "looking American."

Clusterf*** would be a bit of a kind description to be honest, especially since having been in and out of the country for the last several years I now work near a bunch of schools and have noticed how many young kids with fully Irish accents probably born here "look" Asian, Indian, middle eastern, etc these days; and the UK are years if not decades ahead of us in that regard.

Lemming

solodeogloria wrote: »

It's very simple if you want an NI number it won't be given to you until you produce your proof of employment and visa. It won't be issued to you otherwise. Payroll requires an NI number. No number no legitimate work and the Home Office actively clamp down on illegitimate businesses.

That's not true. I was paid for over six weeks without an NI number. On behalf of work for a government dept. Whilst working inside a government building accessing government resources. Now Fred would have it argued that they knew I was Irish, but I still had to wait for my NI interview at which I could have been rejected had everything not been in order or looked questionable.

Using the NI system as border control will. not. work. It was not designed to be used like that Solo. And given the long waiting times for interview it's ludicrous to propose such. Unless of course you are "happy" to pay even more in taxes for the extra workload forced onto the Dept. of Works & Pensions and the borders agency who would have to do regular roundups of work-places looking for furdddiners to detain.

listermint

Jim2007 wrote: »

listermint wrote: »

Don't be incredulous, british citizens would just be required to carry their passports to work no need for two id's. Sure two id's would be overkill

Ya about that... a passport is not very convenient to have to carry around all the time. You'll find plenty of complaints about it on most expat forums. At this point all EU but the U.K. have a credit card sized option.

Clearly I went over the heads

Capt'n Midnight

Can't find it now but there was a recent comment about smuggling fuel across the border.

"customs won't go into bandit country without the police,
the police won't go there without the army,
and the army won't go there without helicopters"

Anyone who thinks a hard border won't be porous is deluded.
Anyone who thinks it'll be cheap is also fooling themselves.


The only way the UK could stop people who have crossed the border from getting to the mainland would be by implementing the sort of controls that they say won't be needed.

Yes the UK could make hard border, but at that stage we might as well join Schengen, everyone goes through the same passport control in Dublin anyway. At that point people with an Irish passport would find it much easier to fly from Dublin or Knock or take the ferry to France. Reducing economic activity in the North means the UK govt would have to spend more to compensate.



At present Ireland is the UK's best friend in the EU but goodwill is being eroded at a fantastic rate.

Fratton Fred

Sam Russell wrote: »

North Korea is perhaps the most extreme example of a country that wanted to take back control and go for splendid isolation. They achieved that alright, but may get visitors quite soon

That pretty much sums up the beliefs of most of the posters on this thread.

The UK is not about to become North Korea. It is one of, if not the most culturally diverse and open countries in the world and leaving the eu will not change that.

As much as some (if not most) on here would wish.

murphaph

People are pissed off at the UK Fred. Please don't take it personally (though I can understand when most posters on a thread are highly critical of one's homeland it might be hard).

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

North Korea is perhaps the most extreme example of a country that wanted to take back control and go for splendid isolation. They achieved that alright, but may get visitors quite soon.

Yes, Britain will find a new place in the world - but maybe not one it would choose willingly.

Albania might be a better example being closer and more countries to compare against. But pretty much.


Anyway back to fishing. If a Dutch trawler lands "UK" fish in Holland how does that work for import tariffs ?

And more importantly given how much of the UK quota is held by other EU companies won't that lead to more offshoring and less UK jobs ?

solodeogloria

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think you have entirely missed my point.

Whoever has to have some form of identity to prove his immigration status while others do not will be subject to some form of discrimination. In my example, the gentleman quizzed by the Garda was born in Ireland but could, to some eyes, be considered foreign.

Either everyone has to prove ID or you get racial profiling of some sort.

Of course T May will deal with this by leaving the ECtHR, so no come back from there, and of course no ECJ to give a bit of judicial advice.

murphaph wrote: »

Thank you. I thought I was being clear but solo didn't get the problem when I explained it.

IDs can only work without racial profiling (racism) of the entire population is required to be able to identify themselves during spot checks. Simple as that.

Good evening!

You've both missed my point. Racial profiling does not come into it at all because raids are only conducted on reports or evidence with a warrant. They aren't conducted randomly. They require justification. Regular police do not conduct deportations. This is only handled by the UK Border Force.

This is how the UK immigration system works today. So it's not an argument against Brexit. You're arguing against the British immigration system as it works today.

You're also arguing against the Irish immigration system which works pretty much the same way through the GNIB (Garda National Immigration Bureau).

Operating the same controls as today with a wider remit is really simple.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight

A slight aside , compared to some of the Brexit stuff like Irexit this makes sense. It gives an idea of the state of the party.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-glastonbury-jeremy-corbyn-george-freeman-conservatives-theresa-may-a7878181.html

A Conservative MP has revealed he is organising a 'Tory Glastonbury' following the boost given to Jeremy Corbyn at the music festival this year.

George Freeman wants to establish the event for party activists and their families as way to bolster the Conservatives' dwindling grassroots support.

...
The party’s membership has fallen to somewhere below 150,000 — less than one-third that of Labour’s and not far ahead of the Scottish National party and the Liberal Democrats.

Sam Russell

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

You've both missed my point. Racial profiling does not come into it at all because raids are only conducted on reports or evidence with a warrant. They aren't conducted randomly. They require justification. Regular police do not conduct deportations. This is only handled by the UK Border Force.

This is how the UK immigration system works today. So it's not an argument against Brexit. You're arguing against the British immigration system as it works today.

You're also arguing against the Irish immigration system which works pretty much the same way through the GNIB (Garda National Immigration Bureau).

Operating the same controls as today with a wider remit is really simple.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I was on a coach going from Dublin (Bus Aras) to London. When we arrived at Holyhead, we had to go through immigration (although we were in the CTA jurisdiction area). A young lady. who I would take from her appearance and dress to be of East African origin (going from her looks), and possibly Muslim, (going from her clothing - although she may have just been wearing traditional clothes) was not allowed back on the coach. Not sure why, but I assume she was picked out because of her ethnic origin. If she was legal in Ireland, she should have been legal in the UK.

There are similar tales of Gardai checking buses/coaches coming from NI doing the same kind of 'checks'.

I would take this at face value as racist behaviour. It will be inevitable if the UK do not introduce ID cards for everyone, and a database of all those British Citizens, EU citizens, 3rd Country Citizens, with the residence status clearly identified on the card.

I have experienced racist behaviour from the British Police (not aimed at myself - just witnessed) so I do not expect a benign attitude from enforcement of immigration whoever does it.

Remember - no ECJ and no ECtHR to oversea rights post Brexit.

solodeogloria

Sam Russell wrote: »

I was on a coach going from Dublin (Bus Aras) to London. When we arrived at Holyhead, we had to go through immigration (although we were in the CTA jurisdiction area). A young lady. who I would take from her appearance and dress to be of East African origin (going from her looks), and possibly Muslim, (going from her clothing - although she may have just been wearing traditional clothes) was not allowed back on the coach. Not sure why, but I assume she was picked out because of her ethnic origin. If she was legal in Ireland, she should have been legal in the UK.

There are similar tales of Gardai checking buses/coaches coming from NI doing the same kind of 'checks'.

I would take this at face value as racist behaviour. It will be inevitable if the UK do not introduce ID cards for everyone, and a database of all those British Citizens, EU citizens, 3rd Country Citizens, with the residence status clearly identified on the card.

I have experienced racist behaviour from the British Police (not aimed at myself - just witnessed) so I do not expect a benign attitude from enforcement of immigration whoever does it.

Remember - no ECJ and no ECtHR to oversea rights post Brexit.

Good evening!

You claim that because someone is legal in Ireland that means that they are legal in the UK. That is not true. Ireland and the UK operate different visa regimes, there are some exceptions with Indian and Chinese tourists where they recognise each others visas but by and large the immigration systems are separate. Ireland and the UK are both not in Schengen and they both have different immigration law. If her passport was looked at and she didn't have the correct visa to enter the UK then she should be deported.

The UK has an obligation to protect its border and its labour market in much the same way that any other country does it.

That isn't "racist" or "racial profiling". If someone does not have a visa to enter the UK then they don't have the right to enter. That's the law.

Again, I've explained how ID for visas works today in the UK for non-EEA nationals. There's no reason why the same system won't work after Brexit with a widened scope.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Can't find it now but there was a recent comment about smuggling fuel across the border.

"customs won't go into bandit country without the police,
the police won't go there without the army,
and the army won't go there without helicopters"

Anyone who thinks a hard border won't be porous is deluded.
Anyone who thinks it'll be cheap is also fooling themselves.


The only way the UK could stop people who have crossed the border from getting to the mainland would be by implementing the sort of controls that they say won't be needed.

Yes the UK could make hard border, but at that stage we might as well join Schengen, everyone goes through the same passport control in Dublin anyway. At that point people with an Irish passport would find it much easier to fly from Dublin or Knock or take the ferry to France. Reducing economic activity in the North means the UK govt would have to spend more to compensate.



At present Ireland is the UK's best friend in the EU but goodwill is being eroded at a fantastic rate.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That pretty much sums up the beliefs of most of the posters on this thread.

The UK is not about to become North Korea. It is one of, if not the most culturally diverse and open countries in the world and leaving the eu will not change that.

As much as some (if not most) on here would wish.

Good evening!

Just to point out here. Fratton Fred is completely right. The people gagging for an opportunity for schadenfreude here is borderline Anglophobia at best.

Capt'n Midnight - if Ireland is the UK's best friend on the basis of this thread, then I wouldn't like to meet the UK's worst enemy. The contributions on this thread do not show Irish people to be the friend of the UK. They show Irish people to be incredibly bitter about the fact that the UK decided to go out of the EU in last years referendum.

A friend would respect their decision, wish them the best and promise to stand by their side in the negotiations.

I wouldn't like a "friendship" like what you describe. It's anything but.

As for me, I'm partially selfish because I depend on the UK for my bread and butter, but I am it's friend in the truest sense of the world. Many of my closest friends live in the UK, and I will stand up for the place that has become a happy home. Perhaps that makes me a West Brit, but I couldn't care less.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight

A bit late , but someone voicing common sense.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40836488

The UK needs a "credible fallback" in case no EU trade deal is reached during Brexit negotiations, former Bank of England governor Mervyn King has said.

...

He said the government "probably wasted a year" on its contingency plans.

...
Brexit Secretary David Davis said Brussels might delay trade talks due to a lack of progress on the cost of the UK's "divorce" settlement.

...
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Lord King said: "We are where we are, and we are in a negotiation and it's important that the negotiation succeeds.

"But it cannot succeed without a credible fallback position and that is something which I think is a practical thing that the civil service ought to be taking a lead on."

it cannot succeed without a credible fallback position

The UK getting a good deal is like getting a bank loan.
The best way to get one is prove you don't need one.


Right now all the economic evidence is showing that the UK needs a good deal more than ever and we haven't seen a plan B other than pious platitudes and wishful thinking.

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

Capt'n Midnight - if Ireland is the UK's best friend on the basis of this thread, then I wouldn't like to meet the UK's worst enemy. The contributions on this thread do not show Irish people to be the friend of the UK. They show Irish people to be incredibly bitter about the fact that the UK decided to go out of the EU in last years referendum.

A friend would respect their decision, wish them the best and promise to stand by their side in the negotiations.

I wouldn't like a "friendship" like what you describe. It's anything but.

"Old enemies but older friends"

We are the only EU country heavily dependent on the UK.
Based on history and culture and media and interrelationships we are far closer to the UK.
But that doesn't mean the UK is automatically entitled to unquestioned support regardless of what they do, nor is it entitled to regard us putting our own interests first (like the UK is doing) as a stab in the back.

Failing to recognise that doesn't win the UK brownie points either.

Treating Ireland like we'll always bail you out won't help the UK case. UK politicians talking about Irexit when opinion poles suggest 88% support of the EU ? Cloud cuckoo stuff



"some languages have one word which says 'I like you very much, but I would not go seal-hunting with you'."

So yes Ireland is pitching for the UK, but it's not an absolute. It's like if you were arrested a good friend would bail you out, and a great friend would be in jail with you going "that was awesome man". We are the friend that's going "we ain't bailing you again until you seek help"


It things go south then 27 countries have vetos. And the UK has upset many of them.

As Leo said the UK will have to ask for compromises, assuming they have an idea what they could realistically expect.



The UK still hasn't accepted Realpolitik.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That pretty much sums up the beliefs of most of the posters on this thread.

The UK is not about to become North Korea. It is one of, if not the most culturally diverse and open countries in the world and leaving the eu will not change that.

As much as some (if not most) on here would wish.

North Korea is extreme but so is Brexit. This will go in the dictionary as the definition of self harm.

steddyeddy

For all the talk of Irish being anti-British it's the French that the UK should worry about.

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

For all the talk of Irish being anti-British it's the French that the UK should worry about.

Not just the UK.

Without the UK supporting Ireland, it may not be long until tax harmonisation is a reality.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Not just the UK.

Without the UK supporting Ireland, it may not be long until tax harmonisation is a reality.

Without the EU supporting the UK the UK won't be supporting anyone Fred. Least not Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales.

View

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It is one of, if not the most culturally diverse and open countries in the world and leaving the eu will not change that.

Ammh, the whole point for Brexit for many Leave voters and the reason they voted to leave the EU is precisely because they object to the UK being an open country - or at least open for EU citizens (they don't have anything to say about the circa 200K non-EU citizens who have arrived since the referendum).

That IS going to change, there is no point in pretending otherwise, since Brexit would be completely pointless if it doesn't.

And like it or not, that will effect the UK's trade. If you single the citizens of other countries - the EU ones, not the non-EU ones - out so you can tell them to f*%k off on a Friday evening, it is unrealistic to expect their governments to do you any favours when you turn up in Brussels on Monday morning and ask them to do you a super-duper deal the likes of which no other non-EU country has.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

You've both missed my point. Racial profiling does not come into it at all because raids are only conducted on reports or evidence with a warrant. They aren't conducted randomly. They require justification. Regular police do not conduct deportations. This is only handled by the UK Border Force.

This is how the UK immigration system works today. So it's not an argument against Brexit. You're arguing against the British immigration system as it works today.

You're also arguing against the Irish immigration system which works pretty much the same way through the GNIB (Garda National Immigration Bureau).

Operating the same controls as today with a wider remit is really simple.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The UK system is a shambles. That doesn't mean ours isn't of course, but we are not closing the door on EU migration and non-EU migrants can be controlled at the border. EU migrants can not.

The UK will now attempt to apply a system that barely works with non-EU migrants to a new cohort of 500 million people who will have no automatic right to remain in the UK but will have the automatic right to pass unhindered through Irish airports and on to the UK through the porous border the UK says it wants to maintain.

Added to this, many hundreds of thousands of existing EU citizens in the UK will become British citizens in time.

Now, I receive some intelligence that half the people working in some meat plant are recently arrived Bulgarians but half are naturalised British Bulgarians. How do I tell them apart when they all claim to be British citizens and therefore don't need to carry ID.

It's going to be chaos.

Fratton Fred

View wrote: »

Ammh, the whole point for Brexit for many Leave voters and the reason they voted to leave the EU is precisely because they object to the UK being an open country - or at least open for EU citizens (they don't have anything to say about the circa 200K non-EU citizens who have arrived since the referendum).

That IS going to change, there is no point in pretending otherwise, since Brexit would be completely pointless if it doesn't.

No, Brexit was about fishing rights.

What you spectacularly fail to realise, is that the diverse ethnic groups of the UK would, generally speaking, have had a vote in the referendum and a second generation Pakistani immigrant would have been just as likely to vote leave as someone whose ancestors fought King Richard III.

Leonard Hofstadter

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, Brexit was about fishing rights.

What you spectacularly fail to realise, is that the diverse ethnic groups of the UK would, generally speaking, have had a vote in the referendum and a second generation Pakistani immigrant would have been just as likely to vote leave as someone whose ancestors fought King Richard III.

That's true.

I do feel that there is a lot of blaming the English when as you rightly point of a lot of older immigrants also voted leave - because of too much immigration!

Wales also voted to leave yet we often hear of Brexit as being an 'English' thing - which helps nobody and is Anglophobia really. Yes England voted leave but so did Wales.

The fact that plenty of the minorities, who very much benefited from immigration voted to leave really makes my blood boil. At least the natives have some excuse, they may feel that their country is changing too fast (and let's be honest, there are parts of the UK where there are not very many natives living in) - I don't necessarily agree with them, but at least I understand where they're coming from.

wes

captainspeed wrote: »

The fact that plenty of the minorities, who very much benefited from immigration voted to leave really makes my blood boil.

If you think your angry, just imagine how Asians like myself feel about my English "cousins". I think it best I hold my tongue.

solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

As Leo said the UK will have to ask for compromises, assuming they have an idea what they could realistically expect.

The UK still hasn't accepted Realpolitik.

Good morning!

Do you remember what I said about the crown jewels a few posts ago? The talks go on for several months. The UK needs to push it's interests hard so the European Commission side understand their position. Movement (on both sides) can and will be made later.

I think compromise is possible within the red lines.

The UK won't be subject to the ECJ and it will not be a member of the customs union and the single market. Those seem to be the UK red lines. Some of the European Commission's current demands are obviously a bit outrageous and that needs to be said early on in the talks.

The UK have already made a number of concessions in the talks. They've compromised on things they can compromise on. For example, the ordering of the talks, or being willing to talk about a sizeable enough divorce bill or being willing to subject all disputes to a court of arbitration or an ombudsman's office with EU representation rather than British courts alone. The UK have agreed to be subject to ECJ rulings for a transitional period and to adopt ECJ prior case law into common law precedent. The UK have offered EU citizens the same rights as British citizens provided they've been in the country for five years.

Leo firstly needs to understand that the UK are leaving the EU instead of hoping they don't leave. Significant moves have been made since Article 50 was invoked. The European side need to clearly understand that the UK is looking for a third country bilateral arrangement. This is possible and it's in the interests of both countries.

I'm not particularly worried. The discussions will continue for another number of months. The key thing for the UK to hammer down is a favourable transition.

As someone who is a true friend of the UK. I hope they get the best possible deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

Just so long as you accept that it's Barnier's job to push hard for the EU side (much harder job actually).

steddyeddy

The UK is putting forward their exit bill proposal of 40 billion. At least it's a start. The EU should at least offer a breakdown if they think it's more.

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/08/06/530866/UK-EU-Brexit-bill

solodeogloria

steddyeddy wrote: »

The UK is putting forward their exit bill proposal of 40 billion. At least it's a start. The EU should at least offer a breakdown if they think it's more.

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/08/06/530866/UK-EU-Brexit-bill

Good morning!

It's worth adding that the UK will only pay if trade terms are on the table. This is reported in the Telegraph which seems to be the original source of the story.

It's probably €40bn net after the UK's share of European investment is returned. So the gross figure is probably higher. That's my assumption anyway.

I agree with the principle that not a penny should be paid from the UK side until trade terms are agreed. This is good progress and this is precisely why I don't believe the fear mongering that is going on at present. I'm confident a good deal will be reached come March 2019.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It's worth adding that the UK will only pay if trade terms are on the table. This is reported in the Telegraph which seems to be the original source of the story.

It's probably €40bn net after the UK's share of European investment is returned. So the gross figure is probably higher. That's my assumption anyway.

I agree with the principle that not a penny should be paid from the UK side until trade terms are agreed. This is good progress and this is precisely why I don't believe the fear mongering that is going on at present. I'm confident a good deal will be reached come March 2019.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

That also means the inverse in that no trade terms will be agreed in the absense of payment. They should have left this out of their proposal.

solodeogloria

steddyeddy wrote: »

That also means the inverse in that no trade terms will be agreed in the absense of payment. They should have left this out of their proposal.

Good morning!

I think most people agree with that in principle. I think it is fair that the UK contribute something to the European Union budget as it exits. I think the figure of €40 billion is acceptable. At the moment it is paying €13bn a year which would account for about 3 years contribution. That's with the amount of it's investments into the European Union and it's institutions being returned taken into account probably.

Although I'm positive about the prospect of Brexit, I think I would say that it is fair that if no payment is made that the European Union wouldn't and indeed probably shouldn't be willing to offer the UK benevolent trade terms.

This is a good concession from the UK side, and I think it counts as "sufficient progress" at least in my eyes.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

The UK needs to be careful about overplaying this hand. In the grand scheme of things €100bn is not going to break the EU and the UK desperately needs very favourable trade terms with the EU (and fast, really fast) or their service sector will be badly damaged (no WTO coverage) and we know the UK economy is dominated by services.

The exit bill is not a bill at all. It is just a calculation of the UK's agreed liabilities and commitments already made.

The UK owes what it owes. I would not expect them to pay a penny more but I would expect them to pay every penny of what they owe.

Anything else is dishonourable and unbecoming of such a country and would call the UK's integrity as a trade partner into question. After all, of the UK is prepared to walk away from agreed commitments with a bloc as large as the EU, then less powerful trading blocs will be very wary of entering into agreements with the UK.

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

The UK needs to be careful about overplaying this hand. In the grand scheme of things €100bn is not going to break the EU and the UK desperately needs very favourable trade terms with the EU (and fast, really fast) or their service sector will be badly damaged (no WTO coverage) and we know the UK economy is dominated by services.

The exit bill is not a bill at all. It is just a calculation of the UK's agreed liabilities and commitments already made.

The UK owes what it owes. I would not expect them to pay a penny more but I would expect them to pay every penny of what they owe.

Anything else is dishonourable and unbecoming of such a country and would call the UK's integrity as a trade partner into question. After all, of the UK is prepared to walk away from agreed commitments with a bloc as large as the EU, then less powerful trading blocs will be very wary of entering into agreements with the UK.

Good morning!

Probably my last post for today, but I think it's unreasonable to say that the UK is "overplaying" it's hand by offering a reasonable amount.

If the €40bn isn't inclusive of the proceeds from the investments that it has in the European Investment Bank and in other institutions we're talking about another €13bn on top (Edit: If not more).

The UK is wise to insist that this has to come with trade terms. The UK needs to protect it's own interests.

If €100bn is what the EU is after, then I agree with Boris Johnson saying "go whistle". I also think you'd need to prove how the UK's commitments until 2022 could be much more than 3 times it's membership fee to the EU (plus at least €13bn from the European Investment Bank and other investment the UK has made to EU institutions).

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight

I suppose that's a bit of good news, there's now a number £36Bn so there's a starting position on the financial stuff that needs to be settled before the real negotiations can begin.

But right at the bottom of this piece is this crazy bit.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40824818

No more friendly drinks

In Brussels, officials from member states complain about a lack of briefings from the UK's equivalent of an embassy to the EU, known as UKREP.

An insider added that UK civil servants no longer join their foreign colleagues for drinks or to watch football matches, depriving them of a crucial diplomatic back-channel.

Capt'n Midnight

Not really news at this stage

Older people who voted for Brexit have "comprehensively shafted the young", Sir Vince Cable has said.

Sir Vince also criticised cabinet ministers, who he claimed were "waging civil war, rather than working out what they want from Brexit."

He says former work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith called for trade envoys to be sacked as a result of them "talking down our country".

"At this rate, we will have Brexit thought crimes before long," said Sir Vince.

If you remember the comment from Lord Heseltine that 2% of their voters were dying every year (from old age) a new Brexit referendum might be different even if everyone voted exactly the same, simply because of the change in demographics.


Something to remember when talking about "the will of the people", dead people no longer have a say ...

... mostly
Psychic Simone Simmons say that Diana, in ‘the only political thing she’s ever said’, told her she must support Brexit

Lemming

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, Brexit was about fishing rights.

I didn't see fishing rights on the ballot paper Fred. How can you claim Brexit was about fishing rights?

What you spectacularly fail to realise, is that the diverse ethnic groups of the UK would, generally speaking, have had a vote in the referendum and a second generation Pakistani immigrant would have been just as likely to vote leave as someone whose ancestors fought King Richard III.

You mean like the ethnic Indian & Pakistani resterauters who were promised that Brexit would mean more visas for them, their workers, and their families because there wouldn't be any EU nationals coming into the country? :pac:


Edit: as an aside to Murphaph and Solo; the €100b figure was arrived at by a British newspaper for senationalist headlines. The EU has never mentioned such a sum so why people keep talking about it as if its cold hard fact is beyond me.

Akrasia

The best thing for the UK and the EU is a high divorce payment accompanied by favorable trading terms. The high divorce bill is a once off payment that can be added to the national debt and nobody will really notice it, but the favorable trading terms would be much more valuable in the long term to both the EU and the UK.

The EU would like a high divorce payment because this would discourage other nations from leaving, and a large figure like 100 billion would be something their politicians can use in a political campaign that is worth a lot more votes than the mundane details of taxes and tariffs.

Unfortunately, a lot of craven politicians on the pro-brexit side are focused on the divorce bill and would rather shoot themselves in the foot than concede on this issue.

Jim2007

Lemming wrote: »

Edit: as an aside to Murpaph and Solo; the €100b figure was arrived at by a British newspaper for senationalist headlines. The EU has never mentioned such a sum so why people keep talking about it as if its cold hard fact is beyond me.

Very true. Indeed the objective has been made very clear, agree the method of calculation. There may very well be some kite flying out of Whitehall on this in the hope that they can get talks going on the figure, but like most of the other stuff they come up with it will fail.

Jim2007

Akrasia wrote: »

The best thing for the UK and the EU is a high divorce payment accompanied by favorable trading terms.

It has never been about a big divorce payment... it is about ensuring that the UK honours it's commitments. The negotiations are about agreeing the method of calculation on the EU not the amount.

Second, a trade agreement would probably not be very difficult to agree and although it would secure 48% of their exports, it does nothing for their financial services sector. And is the real issue for a services based economy. London loosing it's preferential access to the EU markets levels the playing field for both NY and Singapore.

Jim2007

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I suppose that's a bit of good news, there's now a number £36Bn so there's a starting position on the financial stuff that needs to be settled before the real negotiations can begin.

The requirement is to agree the method of calculation and then see what it comes to. The Brits pick a figure and then we argue over it is not how it works.

Capt'n Midnight

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, Brexit was about fishing rights.

If you read between the lines Grove has already said that the fishing rights would be handed back to the EU companies that already own most of the UK quota.
Because in the Tory world one big business boat is more important than 5,000 traditional fishing family boats.

Like I said before if the foreign trawlers catch fish in UK waters can they beat tariffs, and UK costs, by landing it in the EU ?

Then again the European Big Business model in Africa has been to harvest the fish there and then take back to Europe , process it and send it back to Africa at a profit. And local fishermen loose their jobs.



The UK has fewer fisheries patrol vessels than it used to have.
And a reminder to the " let's make Great Britain grate again" crowd. During the First Cod War Iceland had 100 Coast Guards, the UK had 144 major warships. Guess who won ? Guess who also won the other Cod Wars ?



From my earlier post http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104286568&postcount=1045

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-40814377

Mr Gove, the UK environment secretary, said British fishermen would not have the capacity to land all of the fish in British territorial waters.

And he said that some access would therefore be granted to vessels from other countries.

Sounds like it's business as usual for the big boats and with the local fishermen being denied a chance to increase their share.


http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/half-of-english-fishing-quotas-controlled-by-overseas-firms-9836970.html

A single Dutch vessel, the Cornelis Vrolijk, accounts for almost a quarter of the entire English catch and about 6 per cent of the total UK quota.
...

And second, that the 5,000 small boats operated by the traditional UK fishing families are increasingly marginalised – holding just 4 per cent of the entire UK quota between them.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

If €100bn is what the EU is after, then I agree with Boris Johnson saying "go whistle". I also think you'd need to prove how the UK's commitments until 2022 could be much more than 3 times it's membership fee to the EU (plus at least €13bn from the European Investment Bank and other investment the UK has made to EU institutions).

The EU has never set a figure, the objective was and is, to agree the method of calculation not the amount.

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Union does not want a blank cheque from Britain for leaving the EU, but hopes to agree by November on a formula to calculate what London owes when it leaves the bloc, chief EU negotiator Michel Barnier said on Wednesday.

Applying the principles proposed by the EU the figure is expected to be around €60b. I believe the €100b figure you mentioned come from the Financial Times.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Probably my last post for today, but I think it's unreasonable to say that the UK is "overplaying" it's hand by offering a reasonable amount.

If the €40bn isn't inclusive of the proceeds from the investments that it has in the European Investment Bank and in other institutions we're talking about another €13bn on top (Edit: If not more).

The UK is wise to insist that this has to come with trade terms. The UK needs to protect it's own interests.

If €100bn is what the EU is after, then I agree with Boris Johnson saying "go whistle". I also think you'd need to prove how the UK's commitments until 2022 could be much more than 3 times it's membership fee to the EU (plus at least €13bn from the European Investment Bank and other investment the UK has made to EU institutions).

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

They need to agree the methodology for calculating the amount. If it falls out at the end that the UK owes 10bn then they should pay 10bn. If it falls out at the end that they should pay 110bn then they should pay that. The methodology should be agreed before random numbers come into play. I don't want to see the UK "charged" for a trade deal. I just want them to pay what's due and as a country has never left the EU, we need to establish these parameters through negotiation.

To be frank, the EU could just present a bill for some huge figure and the with the threat of no deal for UK services, the UK would be under immense pressure to just pay it. In fairness to the EU it is not suggesting this. It wishes to establish the methodology first and do the sums later.