Theresa May (Vol.2)
Discussion
alfie2244 said:
Coolbanana said:
Indeed, I love the Schengen system and take full advantage.
You are a UK citizen (Joint SA?) AFAIK the UK isn't in the Schengen system apart from the part of law enforcement cooperation?what else was there they havent thought of
Coolbanana said:
I realise it is no different to today except for, possibly, better cooperation between the EU / UK but my point being...tech doesn't prevent Mr Unhappy from getting into the UK. Only a Hard Border might...and a Hard Border is more a UK issue with NI and the GFA than an EU one...
The Mr Unhappy case is a example designed to get knee jerk reactions. In reality, nothing much changes whether we're in or out - terrorists walk amongst us unfortunately, and it's a combination of behind the scenes cooperation and occasional public gestures (like intrusive airport checks) that keep us as safe as we are.I don't think anyone seriously thinks that a chain-link and razor wire border would actually improve matters - it's a Trumpian solution that each side thinks the other side might just be mad enough to endorse.
In reality the concerns are much more pragmatic - movement of goods, argi-products and workers needs to be policed so that the current levels of abuse are not wildly exceeded. Again, it's a conceit that the current border prevents all illegal transfers, and a misconception that the border doesn't exist. It does, there are different regimes either side and a small, but tolerable amount of abuse continues. It is a myth that everything is perfect now and therefore everything must be perfect after Brexit.
So pragmatically, we have the case that we don't really care about tourism. Again, there is a small amount of abuse, but it's tolerated as tourists are in the main well behaved and a great source of income. We do care about workers, but this is policed away from the border by checks at the point of access to social services, employment and housing. Sure you can wander over the border trying to find work, but you are visible to the authorities the moment you try and find somewhere to live, somewhere to work or try to access public services.
That leaves goods. This is where the technical solutions come in - tracking of goods at the point of origin and receipt. We know this can be done, and it's pretty clear that the rapid improvements in technology make on the fly or just in time declarations pretty straightforward if there's the will. Barnier has confirmed that such solutions are acceptable, but the outstanding disagreement is where the effective border lies. Pragmatically, the argument is that it should lie exactly where it always has, that minimal technical checks on major routes could both enforce general compliance and meet the criteria of not imposing a 'border'.
That leaves the back roads, which some parties seem convinced will suddenly be swamped with 48 ton artics. For there to be any meaningful abuse of the system, I feel that this would be fairly obvious to enforcement agents. In other words, a few extra police checks here and there perhaps should be an acceptable deterrent to smuggling.
None of that renders the border impervious. But it never has been. Nor does it stop terrorists. But it never has done, as atrocities across Europe remind us.
It is only political will, not the technicalities (that people like Ghibli insist on going over and over) that prevent a solution being agreed. Even questions like how quickly new solutions can be implemented (a favourite of Mr T) are red herrings, as the speed of implementation is not really a concern of coming to agreement.
(Edited to add... this is of course my interpretation of the situation after pages and pages of discussion. Happy to be corrected on factually inaccurate parts)
Edited by Tuna on Tuesday 20th November 11:13
saaby93 said:
Cant we just accept that the EU and UK have already spent months discussing this and if there was an easier way of doing it theyd have found it by now?
What, you thought they were discussing easy ways of doing things? 
You've completely misunderstood the nature of the negotiations.Tuna said:
saaby93 said:
Cant we just accept that the EU and UK have already spent months discussing this and if there was an easier way of doing it theyd have found it by now?
What, you thought they were discussing easy ways of doing things? You've completely misunderstood the nature of the negotiations.
The easy way of doing things - options
a) abandon Brexit - trouble is the people have voted
b)Full Brexit with border down the Irish Sea - trouble is DUP
c) Full Brexit with the border across Ireland - trouble is DUP
d) Full Brexit but take Eire out too
e) Brexit plus draft agreement
Coolbanana said:
andymadmak said:
For a start, there is the Schengen issue. So just being an EU citizen does not mean that your suicide bomber can stroll into Eire, or even into the UK mainland for that matter. He will have to show his passport (or similar) to get to either place and if he is an identified risk he will (hopefully ) be stopped by either the Garda or British police.
However, if he is not on a risk list then yes, he will stroll right in and destroy your chippy.....just like he would be able to do today. It's the EU that is threatening to withhold security cooperation on terrorism. Perhaps you should have a word with them?
I will have a word with them! However, if he is not on a risk list then yes, he will stroll right in and destroy your chippy.....just like he would be able to do today. It's the EU that is threatening to withhold security cooperation on terrorism. Perhaps you should have a word with them?
Indeed, I love the Schengen system and take full advantage.
However, as I mused, right now, they are stuck in Germany, but given free movement and, as you add, are undetected by any security agency or perhaps are on a watch list yet still allowed to roam free but it is not relayed to the UK in good time, could conceivably end up in Ireland. Now, that actually isn't an issue for the EU at this point if he is headed for the UK, it is more an issue for the UK. How does the UK, without a Hard Border, stop Mr Refugee with a valid German Passport from strolling across to visit Blackpool's finest Chippy?
I realise it is no different to today except for, possibly, better cooperation between the EU / UK but my point being...tech doesn't prevent Mr Unhappy from getting into the UK. Only a Hard Border might...and a Hard Border is more a UK issue with NI and the GFA than an EU one...
I'm on record before as stating that I think the whole NI issue is immature and precious and a Hard Border shouldn't be an issue in this day and age, but, it does exist and I cannot see a will from within any UK Government to tell the World that they are going to breach the GFA.
The EU can throw up a Hard Border though. Naturally, it would involve major arguments with Ireland but they could force it if they wanted to and the problem will bounce right back to the UK and its NI State and the stoopid sectarian nonsense.
Edited by Coolbanana on Tuesday 20th November 09:33
Any attempt by a govt in the south to build a hard border or allowing a Brussels demand for one will be finished
I’d suggest that would push the ROI out of the EU
alfie2244 said:
You are a UK citizen (Joint SA?) AFAIK the UK isn't in the Schengen system apart from the part of law enforcement cooperation?
ETA whilst we are on the subject.......Ireland isn't in it either.
And? ETA whilst we are on the subject.......Ireland isn't in it either.
Edited by alfie2244 on Tuesday 20th November 11:02
I live in Portugal and The Netherlands. I can travel freely between those countries without visiting Passport Control. Same with any Schengen country I wish to visit.
I would only have to visit Passport Control if I was coming in from a non-Schengen country - so my statement is correct, I enjoy taking advantage of being in the Schengen zone.
I know Ireland is not in it - that's why when I go to Amsterdam, I avoid the Ireland/UK section at Faro Airport!
It is great to bypass the long queues of folks from Ireland and the UK at Passport Control as I stroll quickly out of the airport upon my return from Amsterdam. You see them through the glass, waiting patiently. In Schiphol, no one ever asks to see any identification if you are travelling within the Schengen Zone. Only my ticket. I've been to Italy, Belgium, France and Spain recently, the same applies. My point about the nasty person getting to the UK involved using a valid Passport from Germany. That was an extreme example. We could also have Mr Warsaw wanting to stay for an extended period of time with his friends who are legally established in the UK from when it was within the EU...he could go to Ireland...and waltz past the Technology Border. The EU won't give a stuff, why should they? It would be a UK Border problem. In terms of human traffic, the EU may be concerned for Ireland but shouldn't have any issues with the Mainland, the Garda will check Passports before anyone gets to land in the Schengen Zone.
Tuna said:
The Mr Unhappy case is a example designed to get knee jerk reactions. In reality, nothing much changes whether we're in or out - terrorists walk amongst us unfortunately, and it's a combination of behind the scenes cooperation and occasional public gestures (like intrusive airport checks) that keep us as safe as we are.
I don't think anyone seriously thinks that a chain-link and razor wire border would actually improve matters - it's a Trumpian solution that each side thinks the other side might just be mad enough to endorse.
In reality the concerns are much more pragmatic - movement of goods, argi-products and workers needs to be policed so that the current levels of abuse are not wildly exceeded. Again, it's a conceit that the current border prevents all illegal transfers, and a misconception that the border doesn't exist. It does, there are different regimes either side and a small, but tolerable amount of abuse continues. It is a myth that everything is perfect now and therefore everything must be perfect after Brexit.
So pragmatically, we have the case that we don't really care about tourism. Again, there is a small amount of abuse, but it's tolerated as tourists are in the main well behaved and a great source of income. We do care about workers, but this is policed away from the border by checks at the point of access to social services, employment and housing. Sure you can wander over the border trying to find work, but you are visible to the authorities the moment you try and find somewhere to live, somewhere to work or try to access public services.
That leaves goods. This is where the technical solutions come in - tracking of goods at the point of origin and receipt. We know this can be done, and it's pretty clear that the rapid improvements in technology make on the fly or just in time declarations pretty straightforward if there's the will. Barnier has confirmed that such solutions are acceptable, but the outstanding disagreement is where the effective border lies. Pragmatically, the argument is that it should lie exactly where it always has, that minimal technical checks on major routes could both enforce general compliance and meet the criteria of not imposing a 'border'.
That leaves the back roads, which some parties seem convinced will suddenly be swamped with 48 ton artics. For there to be any meaningful abuse of the system, I feel that this would be fairly obvious to enforcement agents. In other words, a few extra police checks here and there perhaps should be an acceptable deterrent to smuggling.
None of that renders the border impervious. But it never has been. Nor does it stop terrorists. But it never has done, as atrocities across Europe remind us.
It is only political will, not the technicalities (that people like Ghibli insist on going over and over) that prevent a solution being agreed. Even questions like how quickly new solutions can be implemented (a favourite of Mr T) are red herrings, as the speed of implementation is not really a concern of coming to agreement.
(Edited to add... this is of course my interpretation of the situation after pages and pages of discussion. Happy to be corrected on factually inaccurate parts)
You make a lot of sense. I don't disagree, it isn't like the current system is perfect either. But pragmatism and logical solutions are out of the window thanks to idiots who refuse to even hear the term 'Hard Border' or even just a few physical checks because it goes against the GFA. I don't think anyone seriously thinks that a chain-link and razor wire border would actually improve matters - it's a Trumpian solution that each side thinks the other side might just be mad enough to endorse.
In reality the concerns are much more pragmatic - movement of goods, argi-products and workers needs to be policed so that the current levels of abuse are not wildly exceeded. Again, it's a conceit that the current border prevents all illegal transfers, and a misconception that the border doesn't exist. It does, there are different regimes either side and a small, but tolerable amount of abuse continues. It is a myth that everything is perfect now and therefore everything must be perfect after Brexit.
So pragmatically, we have the case that we don't really care about tourism. Again, there is a small amount of abuse, but it's tolerated as tourists are in the main well behaved and a great source of income. We do care about workers, but this is policed away from the border by checks at the point of access to social services, employment and housing. Sure you can wander over the border trying to find work, but you are visible to the authorities the moment you try and find somewhere to live, somewhere to work or try to access public services.
That leaves goods. This is where the technical solutions come in - tracking of goods at the point of origin and receipt. We know this can be done, and it's pretty clear that the rapid improvements in technology make on the fly or just in time declarations pretty straightforward if there's the will. Barnier has confirmed that such solutions are acceptable, but the outstanding disagreement is where the effective border lies. Pragmatically, the argument is that it should lie exactly where it always has, that minimal technical checks on major routes could both enforce general compliance and meet the criteria of not imposing a 'border'.
That leaves the back roads, which some parties seem convinced will suddenly be swamped with 48 ton artics. For there to be any meaningful abuse of the system, I feel that this would be fairly obvious to enforcement agents. In other words, a few extra police checks here and there perhaps should be an acceptable deterrent to smuggling.
None of that renders the border impervious. But it never has been. Nor does it stop terrorists. But it never has done, as atrocities across Europe remind us.
It is only political will, not the technicalities (that people like Ghibli insist on going over and over) that prevent a solution being agreed. Even questions like how quickly new solutions can be implemented (a favourite of Mr T) are red herrings, as the speed of implementation is not really a concern of coming to agreement.
(Edited to add... this is of course my interpretation of the situation after pages and pages of discussion. Happy to be corrected on factually inaccurate parts)
Edited by Tuna on Tuesday 20th November 11:13
The EU are naturally playing the game but they can only do so because the UK / Ireland allow them to. If NI and the DUP said, "yeah, ok, let's have some physical checks then to overcome this issue - mix and match Max Fac with some hard checks" then all would be rosy. But they refuse. It's a UK issue to resolve internally more than an EU one. Or am I wrong? Dunno, that's what it looks like.
Coolbanana said:
And?
I live in Portugal and The Netherlands. I can travel freely between those countries without visiting Passport Control. Same with any Schengen country I wish to visit.
I would only have to visit Passport Control if I was coming in from a non-Schengen country - so my statement is correct, I enjoy taking advantage of being in the Schengen zone.
I know Ireland is not in it - that's why when I go to Amsterdam, I avoid the Ireland/UK section at Faro Airport! It is great to bypass the long queues of folks from Ireland and the UK at Passport Control as I stroll quickly out of the airport upon my return from Amsterdam. You see them through the glass, waiting patiently. In Schiphol, no one ever asks to see any identification if you are travelling within the Schengen Zone. Only my ticket. I've been to Italy, Belgium, France and Spain recently, the same applies.
My point about the nasty person getting to the UK involved using a valid Passport from Germany. That was an extreme example. We could also have Mr Warsaw wanting to stay for an extended period of time with his friends who are legally established in the UK from when it was within the EU...he could go to Ireland...and waltz past the Technology Border. The EU won't give a stuff, why should they? It would be a UK Border problem. In terms of human traffic, the EU may be concerned for Ireland but shouldn't have any issues with the Mainland, the Garda will check Passports before anyone gets to land in the Schengen Zone.
the question regards Mr Warsaw once again is why would he bother going to Ireland first? I live in Portugal and The Netherlands. I can travel freely between those countries without visiting Passport Control. Same with any Schengen country I wish to visit.
I would only have to visit Passport Control if I was coming in from a non-Schengen country - so my statement is correct, I enjoy taking advantage of being in the Schengen zone.
I know Ireland is not in it - that's why when I go to Amsterdam, I avoid the Ireland/UK section at Faro Airport!
It is great to bypass the long queues of folks from Ireland and the UK at Passport Control as I stroll quickly out of the airport upon my return from Amsterdam. You see them through the glass, waiting patiently. In Schiphol, no one ever asks to see any identification if you are travelling within the Schengen Zone. Only my ticket. I've been to Italy, Belgium, France and Spain recently, the same applies. My point about the nasty person getting to the UK involved using a valid Passport from Germany. That was an extreme example. We could also have Mr Warsaw wanting to stay for an extended period of time with his friends who are legally established in the UK from when it was within the EU...he could go to Ireland...and waltz past the Technology Border. The EU won't give a stuff, why should they? It would be a UK Border problem. In terms of human traffic, the EU may be concerned for Ireland but shouldn't have any issues with the Mainland, the Garda will check Passports before anyone gets to land in the Schengen Zone.
Coolbanana said:
You make a lot of sense. I don't disagree, it isn't like the current system is perfect either. But pragmatism and logical solutions are out of the window thanks to idiots who refuse to even hear the term 'Hard Border' or even just a few physical checks because it goes against the GFA.
The EU are naturally playing the game but they can only do so because the UK / Ireland allow them too. If NI and the DUP said, "yeah, ok, let's have some physical checks then to overcome this issue - mix and match Max Fac with some hard checks" then all would be rosy. But they refuse. It's a UK issue to resolve internally more than an EU one. Or am I wrong? Dunno, that's what it looks like.
You're fundamentally misunderstanding/underestimating the situation surrounding the GFA and the effect a hard border would have. It's a compromise agreement that allows those who live in Northern Ireland and consider themselves to be Irish citizens to live their lives as if they were Irish. They consider those who think of themselves as British as invaders/occupiers.The EU are naturally playing the game but they can only do so because the UK / Ireland allow them too. If NI and the DUP said, "yeah, ok, let's have some physical checks then to overcome this issue - mix and match Max Fac with some hard checks" then all would be rosy. But they refuse. It's a UK issue to resolve internally more than an EU one. Or am I wrong? Dunno, that's what it looks like.
Introducing a hard border, along with the fact the power-sharing isn't working well, returns NI back to where it was before the GFA.
A sizeable population who consider themselves and their country under the yoke of an occupying power. Leavers should have some understanding of what this feels like, since they're all so keen on taking back control, sovereignty and all of that.
The EU was part of the solution of NI. With alignment of regulations between the UK and Ireland as part of the EU, free movement of goods, services, people and capital, at a practical level there was little difference between NI being a part of the UK or part of Ireland.
esxste said:
CaptainSlow said:
Why is the DUP stopping this? I would have thought they'd love that idea.
Because they're not keen on a return of the constant violence, the loss of life, the disruption to life, business and economy that came with The Troubles ?Vanden Saab said:
he question regards Mr Warsaw once again is why would he bother going to Ireland first?
Ireland would allow him in, make a note of his Passport etc. How does the UK track him into Britain from there? Or is there a check between Britain and NI? Once in, he goes to his extended family, lives there, works for one of their businesses, could be ages before he is discovered and deported.
Also,
GFA provides for a devolved administration with a power sharing agreement.
If power returned to direct rule from Westminster, they'd go back to having precious little say, lobbying the Government with their 10 MPs.
Sure, right now they have a bit of power over TM and the Tories, but when a majority Government is in power, they're insignificant in Westminster.
The DUP have no interest in giving up power in NI.
GFA provides for a devolved administration with a power sharing agreement.
If power returned to direct rule from Westminster, they'd go back to having precious little say, lobbying the Government with their 10 MPs.
Sure, right now they have a bit of power over TM and the Tories, but when a majority Government is in power, they're insignificant in Westminster.
The DUP have no interest in giving up power in NI.
CaptainSlow said:
esxste said:
CaptainSlow said:
Why is the DUP stopping this? I would have thought they'd love that idea.
Because they're not keen on a return of the constant violence, the loss of life, the disruption to life, business and economy that came with The Troubles ?However the best (so far) way of not having it is the draft agreement - thats one of the (main) reasons its on the table.
Without it the border comes in which almost nobody wants.
Its not clear which way the DUP want their bread buttered
Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 20th November 12:28
saaby93 said:
CaptainSlow said:
esxste said:
CaptainSlow said:
Why is the DUP stopping this? I would have thought they'd love that idea.
Because they're not keen on a return of the constant violence, the loss of life, the disruption to life, business and economy that came with The Troubles ?However the best (so far) way of not having it is the draft agreement - thats one of the (main) reasons its on the table.
Without it the border comes in which almost nobody wants.
Its not clear which way the DUP want their bread buttered
Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 20th November 12:28
"c) Full Brexit with the border across Ireland - trouble is DUP"
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff