Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Peregrinus

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

But it's not an offence. Its repeated offending. Breaking the law of the country they moved to
over and over again..

It's not repeated offending. It's much wider than that. UK policy is:

- Automatic deportation after a single offence that attracts a sentence of 1 year or more.

- Routine deportation after two or more offences attracting lesser custodial sentences.

- Deportation considered in case involving a single offence attracting a sentence of less than a year, or two or more offences attracting non-custodual sentences.

And, on a nitpick, we are not just talking about people who moved to the UK here. Many non-citizens in the UK were born there. Others were brought here at a young age and have no memory of ever living anywhere else.

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

They are no addition to the country, are a burden on the state. They are also wasting police and court times.
Repeat offenders should be deported. Their place could be taken by someone who wants to contribute to society.

I fully support that type of immigration and justice system.

They are not wasting any more police and court time than citizens who commit similar offences, so it is hard to see why they should be punished more severely than citizens are. The notion that "their place could be taken by someone who wants to contribute to society" is just silly; the UK does not operate a system in which the deportation of one person opens up a vacancy that another person can fill; has the discussion of the "points-based immigration system" completely passed you by?

Fr Tod Umptious

I'm no fan of Brexiteers, or this Tory government but I think a lot of the giving out around here about new UK emigration laws just seems to be Brit bashing for the sake of it.

A points based emigration immigration system and tough measures on the deportation of criminals is something that would be very popular in this country as well I believe.

Peregrinus

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I'm no fan of Brexiteers, or this Tory government but I think a lot of the giving out around here about new UK emigration laws just seems to be Brit bashing for the sake of it.

A points based emigration system and tough measures on the deportation of criminals is something that would be very popular in this country as well I believe.

This may amaze you, Tod, but the question of whether a particular policy is right or wise is not actually the same as the question of whether it would be popular in Ireland.

Lumen

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

A points based emigration system and tough measures on the deportation of criminals is something that would be very popular in this country as well I believe.

Points based emigration would be interesting. "Sorry, you're overqualified to leave". :pac:

Introducing policy based on its appeal to people who haven't thought through the consequences is just populism. Like, eh, Brexit.

Shelga

The Guardian reported that it had been agreed that no person who came to the UK under the age of 12 was on the deportation flight, i.e. "the Jamaican authorities quietly agreed a deal not to remove people who came as children". My understanding is that 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 year olds are still children, no?

The Home Office's defence is that the people on the flight were murderers and rapists. However, it's a bit more complicated if someone has been in the country since they were 13 and has children. Also, others on the flight were not murderers or rapists. It's just yet another attempt to pretend everything has simple answers, and the Brexit voters of the UK will lap it up.

Brexit Britain is an ugly place.

breezy1985

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not repeated offending. It's much wider than that. UK policy is:

- Automatic deportation after a single offence that attracts a sentence of 1 year or more.

- Routine deportation after two or more offences attracting lesser custodial sentences.

- Deportation considered in case involving a single offence attracting a sentence of less than a year, or two or more offences attracting non-custodual sentences.

And, on a nitpick, we are not just talking about people who moved to the UK here. Many non-citizens in the UK were born there. Others were brought here at a young age and have no memory of ever living anywhere else.


They are not wasting any more police and court time than citizens who commit similar offences, so it is hard to see why they should be punished more severely than citizens are. The notion that "their place could be taken by someone who wants to contribute to society" is just silly; the UK does not operate a system in which the deportation of one person opens up a vacancy that another person can fill; has the discussion of the "points-based immigration system" completely passed you by?

Although the power is probably never used I'm sure that a foreign national can be deported for political agitation if arrested at a protest.

Fr Tod Umptious

Lumen wrote: »

Points based emigration would be interesting. "Sorry, you're overqualified to leave". :pac:

Introducing policy based on its appeal to people who haven't thought through the consequences is just populism. Like, eh, Brexit.

Well done on the pedantry

I've edited my post.

Fr Tod Umptious

Peregrinus wrote: »

This may amaze you, Tod, but the question of whether a particular policy is right or wise is not actually the same as the question of whether it would be popular in Ireland.

I totally agree

But I for one believe that a sort of immigration policy that would be seen as hard line on criminals and rewarding to well educated professionals would be very popular in this country regardless of how right or wise it may be

Lets not fool ourselves that we are on some higher moral ground than "the Brits" when it comes to thins sort of thing.

Podge_irl

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Lets not fool ourselves that we are on some higher moral ground than "the Brits" when it comes to thins sort of thing.

Indeed, I think that would be a dangerous presumption.

However, we at least do not have the colonial baggage that the UK does. One would think after the recent Windrush scandal they would have been keen to avoid another questionable Jamaican deportation story. However their ideology appears to trump all.

ExMachina1000

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not repeated offending. It's much wider than that. UK policy is:

- Automatic deportation after a single offence that attracts a sentence of 1 year or more.

- Routine deportation after two or more offences attracting lesser custodial sentences.

- Deportation considered in case involving a single offence attracting a sentence of less than a year, or two or more offences attracting non-custodual sentences.

And, on a nitpick, we are not just talking about people who moved to the UK here. Many non-citizens in the UK were born there. Others were brought here at a young age and have no memory of ever living anywhere else.


They are not wasting any more police and court time than citizens who commit similar offences, so it is hard to see why they should be punished more severely than citizens are. The notion that "their place could be taken by someone who wants to contribute to society" is just silly; the UK does not operate a system in which the deportation of one person opens up a vacancy that another person can fill; has the discussion of the "points-based immigration system" completely passed you by?

If you come to a country and break its laws. Be it repeat offenders or crimes that attract prison sentencing you are liable for deportation.
Is that it in a nut shell?

If so then I wholeheartedly agree with such policy.

You are entitled to your opinion but if you are arguing on behalf of criminals and lawbreakers I have to disagree with you.
I find it odd to take such a position if I'm honest with you but such is life

breezy1985

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

If you come to a country and break its laws. Be it repeat offenders or crimes that attract prison sentencing you are liable for deportation.
Is that it in a nut shell?

If so then I wholeheartedly agree with such policy.

You are entitled to your opinion but if you are arguing on behalf of criminals and lawbreakers I have to disagree with you.
I find it odd to take such a position if I'm honest with you but such is life

But as I said earlier I remember being at legal protests in London and being warned to be extra careful as any foreigner including EU citizens can be deported if arrested at a protest. Take into account that people can be lifted out of croups and kettles in protests and you suddenly have people who broke no law getting deported.

Not every lawbreaker or broken law is the same and no one should know better than the Irish to be sceptical of giving the UK legal system too much sweeping power

Leroy42

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

If you come to a country and break its laws. Be it repeat offenders or crimes that attract prison sentencing you are liable for deportation.
Is that it in a nut shell?

If so then I wholeheartedly agree with such policy.

You are entitled to your opinion but if you are arguing on behalf of criminals and lawbreakers I have to disagree with you.
I find it odd to take such a position if I'm honest with you but such is life

But wasn't that always their right? Certainly, they could for any Non-EU. Was there actually a law stopping the UK from making EU citizens that broke laws and failed to support themselves return home?

breezy1985

Leroy42 wrote: »

But wasn't that always their right? Certainly, they could for any Non-EU. Was there actually a law stopping the UK from making EU citizens that broke laws and failed to support themselves return home?

No. Each country chooses what it classes as a "serious case" for deportation and the EU were unhappy about the severity of the application of the laws in the UK they could not stop it

Leroy42

breezy1985 wrote: »

No. Each country chooses what it classes as a "serious case" for deportation and the EU were unhappy about the severity of the application of the laws in the UK they could not stop it

I assume you mean the EU could stop it?

But that was based on agreed rules. It wasn't that the EU was making up the laws, the country were being told they were operating outside the laws.

So the UK did have the ability, once they adhered to the law.

So in effect, the UK are now saying they want to make up the law whatever way they see fit. Sounds great, except the UK has, like most countries, a history of some serious breaches of the laws to suit themselves.

All that seems to be changing is that the UK government is saying they don't want to be held accountable.

breezy1985

Leroy42 wrote: »

I assume you mean the EU could stop it?

But that was based on agreed rules. It wasn't that the EU was making up the laws, the country were being told they were operating outside the laws.

So the UK did have the ability, once they adhered to the law.

So in effect, the UK are now saying they want to make up the law whatever way they see fit. Sounds great, except the UK has, like most countries, a history of some serious breaches of the laws to suit themselves.

All that seems to be changing is that the UK government is saying they don't want to be held accountable.

You asked this question : Was there actually a law stopping the UK from making EU citizens that broke laws and failed to support themselves return home?

That's what I was answering "No" as there isnt a law stopping them from deporting criminal or destitute EU citizens

Seth Brundle

Tony Connelly is reporting that the French have rushed their software which now would not automatically recognise Irish goods entering the EU at Calais via the landbridge. They would therefore be recognised by the software as coming from a third country. Irish food exporters would need to complete the NCTS transit and TRACES formalities before the goods leave Ireland.

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2020/1203/1182088-brexit/

peter kern

breezy1985 wrote: »

You asked this question : Was there actually a law stopping the UK from making EU citizens that broke laws and failed to support themselves return home?

That's what I was answering "No" as there isnt a law stopping them from deporting criminal or destitute EU citizens

and to add it was the british goverment that allowed rumanians and bulgarins in first when they did not have to when those 2 countries joined.
which they then seemed to blame un the EU. i cant remember exactly but germany for intstance waited until this transition period ended to allow free movement for 2 said countries.

steddyeddy

So according to Gavin Williamson, the British education secretary the UK has approved the vaccine first because it is a much better country than France, Belgium ect. This sort of English exceptionalism thinking fuelled Brexit.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/gavin-williamson-brexit-us-france-belgium-covid-vaccine-b1765562.html

lawred2

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Tony Connelly is reporting that the French have rushed their software which now would not automatically recognise Irish goods entering the EU at Calais via the landbridge. They would therefore be recognised by the software as coming from a third country. Irish food exporters would need to complete the NCTS transit and TRACES formalities before the goods leave Ireland.

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2020/1203/1182088-brexit/

more motivation to stop using the landbridge

An Ciarraioch

The "simplified" GB to NI customs declaration process:

https://twitter.com/JP_Biz/status/1334269940312969216

Mr.Wemmick

steddyeddy wrote: »

So according to Gavin Williamson, the British education secretary the UK has approved the vaccine first because it is a much better country than France, Belgium ect. This sort of English exceptionalism thinking fuelled Brexit.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/gavin-williamson-brexit-us-france-belgium-covid-vaccine-b1765562.html

They have nothing left. No valid statements or truth. A saturation of lies and propaganda now they've run out of options.

Might as well put The Daily Mail Headquarters on the door of No. 10 and be done with it.

Strazdas

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

They have nothing left. No valid statements or truth. A saturation of lies and propaganda now they've run out of options.

Might as well put The Daily Mail Headquarters on the door of No. 10 and be done with it.

It's very much a Trump style regime. Send all ministers and spokespeople out to lie....don't even have the slightest qualms about telling lies, it's nearly expected of you.

ambro25

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

They have nothing left. No valid statements or truth. A saturation of lies and propaganda now they've run out of options.

Might as well put The Daily Mail Headquarters on the door of No. 10 and be done with it.

It ceases to be so strange, once you place it into a wider context of securing a no-deal outcome at any cost.

Because in that context, any messaging of any sort by ERG types (and/or their political captives) is all about confusing and distracting to buy a little more time to year end and, this close to the finish line, literally any old guff will do. JRM yesterday, Gavin Williamson today, so many before him, so many still to come before month end.

It really smacks of desperation, but you have to recall that these are reasonably intelligent, self-aware, functioning adults, and so that there must be purpose/motivation to their behaviour. Considering the people and the positions, I just don't believe that (merely-) 'staying in power' is it.

dogbert27

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

They have nothing left. No valid statements or truth. A saturation of lies and propaganda now they've run out of options.

Might as well put The Daily Mail Headquarters on the door of No. 10 and be done with it.

Even the FDA who have pressure from the Trump administration are holding out on approval until they have done due diligence.

Next year it will be politicians eating chlorinated chicken to show there's no danger to it!

listermint

ambro25 wrote: »

It ceases to be so strange, once you place it into a wider context of securing a no-deal outcome at any cost.

Because in that context, any messaging of any sort by ERG types (and/or their political captives) is all about confusing and distracting to buy a little more time to year end and, this close to the finish line, literally any old guff will do. JRM yesterday, Gavin Williamson today, so many before him, so many still to come before month end.

It really smacks of desperation, but you have to recall that these are reasonably intelligent, self-aware, functioning adults, and so that there must be purpose/motivation to their behaviour. Considering the people and the positions, I just don't believe that (merely-) 'staying in power' is it.

It's hardly related to gambling with major assets and making absolutely hay while the country falls to bits.

Surely people in office couldnt be swayed by millions and millions of pounds...

IAmTheReign

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

If you come to a country and break its laws. Be it repeat offenders or crimes that attract prison sentencing you are liable for deportation.
Is that it in a nut shell?

If so then I wholeheartedly agree with such policy.

You are entitled to your opinion but if you are arguing on behalf of criminals and lawbreakers I have to disagree with you.
I find it odd to take such a position if I'm honest with you but such is life

I don't see a big problem with it myself either. If you choose to move to a new country you should at a bare minimum be willing to abide by the laws of that country. Deportation of foreign criminals is quite common here in Switzerland for serious and repeat offenders. In fact there was a German woman where I worked who was brought to court for repeated speeding fines and was told she could lose her residency if she was caught doing it again.

Lemming

ambro25 wrote: »

It really smacks of desperation, but you have to recall that these are reasonably intelligent, self-aware, functioning adults, and so that there must be purpose/motivation to their behaviour. Considering the people and the positions, I just don't believe that (merely-) 'staying in power' is it.

Considering that Johnson has stuffed his cabinet full of 'yes' men/women/vampires having purged anyone who didn't follow him blindly combined with the constant hostility & attempts to undermine the civil service, there is a very real possibility that the cabinet is - on the whole - comprised of truly talentless, easy led, and/or corrupt, gobsh1tes, with either one or two actual string pullers mixed in (or standing close by, stage left). Certainly the current cabinets track record to date implies incompetence at levels beyond parody.

CrabRevolution

Before and after the election we were told by Brexiters that the EU would seek a "harsh" deal (i.e. one that doesn't allow the UK to eat its cake and have it) but that the EU member states would then rein the EU in and insist on conceding to a deal on the UK's terms. The idea was that unlike the steadfast UK, EU countries had no resolve or backbone and would be willing to sacrifice any and all long term policies and ideals in order to keep short term trade unimpeded- "Berlin not Brussels, German car and French wine makers etc.".

But in episode #857 of "The Opposite of the Brexiters' claims has come to pass", we see this in the Financial Times:

EU capitals urge Barnier to take tougher line with UK

Mr Barnier on Wednesday was warned by nations including France, the Netherlands and Denmark that too much ground was being ceded to the UK, and they insisted it would be better to allow negotiations to drag on longer than to give in to the temptation of a quick deal this week.

https://www.ft.com/content/d65e09da-bac5-4d27-bdc8-22949ce91be8 (Presumably behind a paywall)

So not only is the EU not playing "bad cop", the EU states somehow don't agree with the Brexiters' insistence that everyone is desperate for a deal with the UK at any cost....

cml387

I see that Gavin Williamson (British Education Secretary) puts the UK approval of the vaccine down to the fact that the UK is a much better country

Is it possible that this early approval and the concerted efforts to make it seem like a British success is to provide cover for concessions to the EU?

VinLieger

cml387 wrote: »

I see that Gavin Williamson (British Education Secretary) puts the UK approval of the vaccine down to the fact that the UK is a much better country

Is it possible that this early approval and the concerted efforts to make it seem like a British success is to provide cover for concessions to the EU?

It probably is but its still completely wrong as they were piggy backing off the EU framework regarding the vaccine data to get to the point that they could approve it.


https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1334091648951857152