How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 6)
Discussion
JuanCarlosFandango said:
There's really no need. The checks can take place when you get a job, rent a house, claim benefits, register with a GP etc. We do this anyway.
There's no reason to think significant numbers of Poles, Bulgarians or anyone else will engage in mass law breaking or that they would use such a circuitous route to do it when any sensible British government (I know that seems fanciful right now) would give a visa waiver/visa on arrival and fairly flexible work and residency visas to the citizens of those countries.
You may think it to be as simple as you have described - and I don't disagree with you on that score entirely - but the Government has a duty to ensure that no undesirables can enter the UK unlawfully, and proving when an individual first arrived in the UK could be problematic in some cases. There's no reason to think significant numbers of Poles, Bulgarians or anyone else will engage in mass law breaking or that they would use such a circuitous route to do it when any sensible British government (I know that seems fanciful right now) would give a visa waiver/visa on arrival and fairly flexible work and residency visas to the citizens of those countries.
The Government itself has repeatedly admitted it has no actual clue as to how many foreigners reside in the UK from the EU. It has never performed any actual checks which is its own failure - it is all estimated.
While you are obviously perfectly happy to accept a certain relatively low number of unlawful entry attempts, the Government cannot be so blasé about it. If someone is raped or murdered by someone in 10 years time and it emerged the perp entered via NI unchecked and was illegally residing in the UK, or the individuals true arrival could not be conclusively proven as being during FOM or not, it would raise some very uncomfortable questions and a Hard Border involving checks would be back in the spotlight.
Accepting a certain degree of leeway by applying the kind of logic you are using is all well and good for some applications, but for a Government wanting to be seen to be in control of its own Borders, it doesn't work.
gooner1 said:
Oh dear, you appear awfully tetchy this fine winters day.
I couldn't give a big rats arse who you voted for in any GE past or future.
What's a bum chum, chum?
There is no border problem as will become apparent when we leave with no deal and
no hard border is constructed.
if only you would just ask the questions he wants you to ask and give the answers he would like i am sure he would be much less tetchy I couldn't give a big rats arse who you voted for in any GE past or future.
What's a bum chum, chum?
There is no border problem as will become apparent when we leave with no deal and
no hard border is constructed.
Tuna said:
I'm fascinated that people think the ERG have co-ordinated this vote of no confidence.
It's pretty clear they haven't - if they were leading the charge, they had enough numbers to get the letters in weeks ago. It's clear that they could not do so.
The timing is also very bad for them - a day after the vote was meant to happen, and the same day that they release their alternative proposal. They had everything lined up to 'answer' May's vote in the anticipation it would have failed.
Instead, they released the paper just as May's actions drove enough MPs over the edge and the Confidence vote has pushed their hard work completely out of the news.
It seems to me that the Confidence vote has grown out of individual MPs getting tired of the theatre (and details like the EU knowing she'd pulled the vote before they did).
At best she's been withholding information, and at worst outright lying. Given the way the Confidence vote came in it would be a surprise if she lost (I think...), but that reflects very badly on the Tory Members who are tacitly accepting a dishonest and tone deaf leader.
It's pretty clear they haven't - if they were leading the charge, they had enough numbers to get the letters in weeks ago. It's clear that they could not do so.
The timing is also very bad for them - a day after the vote was meant to happen, and the same day that they release their alternative proposal. They had everything lined up to 'answer' May's vote in the anticipation it would have failed.
Instead, they released the paper just as May's actions drove enough MPs over the edge and the Confidence vote has pushed their hard work completely out of the news.
It seems to me that the Confidence vote has grown out of individual MPs getting tired of the theatre (and details like the EU knowing she'd pulled the vote before they did).
At best she's been withholding information, and at worst outright lying. Given the way the Confidence vote came in it would be a surprise if she lost (I think...), but that reflects very badly on the Tory Members who are tacitly accepting a dishonest and tone deaf leader.
/\ this.
Dr Jekyll said:
Ghibli said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Trading under WTO allows us to arrange our own deals, it's the same thing.
Are we not negotiating our own deal with the EU now?What is wrong with keeping the agreements we already have while negotiating new deals during our withdrawal implementation period.
Is it a case of hurting the EU and ourselves in the hope that the EU will forget about the backstop and give us special treatment as a third country? While trading under WTO wouldn't they need to apply the same treatment to all countries.
toppstuff said:
Vanden Saab said:
There is no Irish problem, both the UK and the EU have said a technological solution for goods is acceptable and as long as we agree to a timetable to implement it the WTO are happy. There is a long history of this happening all over the world. Once the FTA is agreed it becomes a non-issue anyway... From a people perspective the UK and Ireland have always worked together to prevent those they do not want in their countries from getting in and this will not change...
As you have the key to solving brexit with such sage knowledge and wisdom, why are you here on a car forum and not earning the big bucks as an international trade lawyer advising the gubbernment ?Your country needs you.
In the real world things are a bit different. No one has any detailed plans on how to build a technology border in Ireland or even if it’s possible. If it is possible no one knows how long it would take or cost. Even if it was built it still cannot deal with SPS goods where physical inspection is required. Even the A+ plan had to include a water border for those goods.
As for WTO sign off. The WTO does not sign things off, members can take a case to the court and the UK defence that this is a temporary measure might or might not be accepted.
As it is it will be hard to negotiate new FTA’s when the UK is in breach of WTO rules.
The no deal team also seem to assume the new border controls needed at the channel links can be overcome by moving goods from lorries and loading into containers so they can be shipped to other UK ports. There is no evidence but well PH TCD know all.
There also seems to have been no assessment of the implications for the UK walking away from the current EU trade deals.
They also tends to forget we must have agreement on say aerospace, access to the EU energy markets, etc, etc. All of which some seem to think the EU will give us while we keep the £39bn.
Tuna said:
At best she's been withholding information, and at worst outright lying. Given the way the Confidence vote came in it would be a surprise if she lost (I think...), but that reflects very badly on the Tory Members who are tacitly accepting a dishonest and tone deaf leader.
On the issue of withholding information, is it correct that the government has still not released the complete legal advise on the WA to Parliament - only the part relating to the Irish backstop issue? Or have I got that wrong?wc98 said:
gooner1 said:
Oh dear, you appear awfully tetchy this fine winters day.
I couldn't give a big rats arse who you voted for in any GE past or future.
What's a bum chum, chum?
There is no border problem as will become apparent when we leave with no deal and
no hard border is constructed.
if only you would just ask the questions he wants you to ask and give the answers he would like i am sure he would be much less tetchy I couldn't give a big rats arse who you voted for in any GE past or future.
What's a bum chum, chum?
There is no border problem as will become apparent when we leave with no deal and
no hard border is constructed.
I guess he is just trolling and wanting to be like dontbesilly.
Crackie said:
Tuna said:
I'm fascinated that people think the ERG have co-ordinated this vote of no confidence.
It's pretty clear they haven't - if they were leading the charge, they had enough numbers to get the letters in weeks ago. It's clear that they could not do so.
The timing is also very bad for them - a day after the vote was meant to happen, and the same day that they release their alternative proposal. They had everything lined up to 'answer' May's vote in the anticipation it would have failed.
Instead, they released the paper just as May's actions drove enough MPs over the edge and the Confidence vote has pushed their hard work completely out of the news.
It seems to me that the Confidence vote has grown out of individual MPs getting tired of the theatre (and details like the EU knowing she'd pulled the vote before they did).
At best she's been withholding information, and at worst outright lying. Given the way the Confidence vote came in it would be a surprise if she lost (I think...), but that reflects very badly on the Tory Members who are tacitly accepting a dishonest and tone deaf leader.
It's pretty clear they haven't - if they were leading the charge, they had enough numbers to get the letters in weeks ago. It's clear that they could not do so.
The timing is also very bad for them - a day after the vote was meant to happen, and the same day that they release their alternative proposal. They had everything lined up to 'answer' May's vote in the anticipation it would have failed.
Instead, they released the paper just as May's actions drove enough MPs over the edge and the Confidence vote has pushed their hard work completely out of the news.
It seems to me that the Confidence vote has grown out of individual MPs getting tired of the theatre (and details like the EU knowing she'd pulled the vote before they did).
At best she's been withholding information, and at worst outright lying. Given the way the Confidence vote came in it would be a surprise if she lost (I think...), but that reflects very badly on the Tory Members who are tacitly accepting a dishonest and tone deaf leader.
/\ this.
It seems there is an increasing number of them on these boards.
alfie2244 said:
gooner1 said:
p1stonhead said:
Only thing to question is where the checks will take place of course. Because currently you don’t always need ID to cross on say a ferry (been many times and never asked) and the DUP won’t accept a border down the sea.
Therefore anyone from the EU can come into the UK unchecked unless at least a few things change.
Is it a case of you don't need ID, or that you wasn't asked to present it?Therefore anyone from the EU can come into the UK unchecked unless at least a few things change.
And where was the ferry coming from?
Under the CTA the right of entry into Ireland and the UK are coordinated. This only becomes an issue if future arrangements required tourist VISAs for EU nationals. The system will still pick up over-stays on working VISAs and the right to work will still be policed at the point of employment.
And obviously it will remain easier to work in the UK illegally as an EU national, or a national of any country with visa-free tourist access to the UK, to fly in or cross the channel directly.
Coolbanana said:
You may think it to be as simple as you have described - and I don't disagree with you on that score entirely - but the Government has a duty to ensure that no undesirables can enter the UK unlawfully, and proving when an individual first arrived in the UK could be problematic in some cases.
The Government itself has repeatedly admitted it has no actual clue as to how many foreigners reside in the UK from the EU. It has never performed any actual checks which is its own failure - it is all estimated.
While you are obviously perfectly happy to accept a certain relatively low number of unlawful entry attempts, the Government cannot be so blasé about it. If someone is raped or murdered by someone in 10 years time and it emerged the perp entered via NI unchecked and was illegally residing in the UK, or the individuals true arrival could not be conclusively proven as being during FOM or not, it would raise some very uncomfortable questions and a Hard Border involving checks would be back in the spotlight.
Accepting a certain degree of leeway by applying the kind of logic you are using is all well and good for some applications, but for a Government wanting to be seen to be in control of its own Borders, it doesn't work.
AIUI Ireland has an almost identical border regime to us with the rest of the EU. Not being Schengen members we effectively patrol each others borders, and once you're into one you can travel fairly freely to the other. You could check when an individual entered Ireland as easily as you can now, and can guess at when they crossed from the Republic to the UK just as well as you can check when they crossed from Yorkshire to Lancashire. The Government itself has repeatedly admitted it has no actual clue as to how many foreigners reside in the UK from the EU. It has never performed any actual checks which is its own failure - it is all estimated.
While you are obviously perfectly happy to accept a certain relatively low number of unlawful entry attempts, the Government cannot be so blasé about it. If someone is raped or murdered by someone in 10 years time and it emerged the perp entered via NI unchecked and was illegally residing in the UK, or the individuals true arrival could not be conclusively proven as being during FOM or not, it would raise some very uncomfortable questions and a Hard Border involving checks would be back in the spotlight.
Accepting a certain degree of leeway by applying the kind of logic you are using is all well and good for some applications, but for a Government wanting to be seen to be in control of its own Borders, it doesn't work.
If it turned out that a series of brutal crimes are being perpetuated by people who have used this round about way to cross our borders (even though half of Iran seems capable of getting far enough out of Calais that the coast guard ferries them across anyway) then we might have to look again, but the idea that this warrants breaking up the UK and submitting the country to that hideous backstop arrangement until the EU feels like letting us out is ludicrous at best and more likely (or obviously, depending how cynical you are) a ploy to make the whole thing seem too difficult.
Greg66 said:
... is the alternative facts based ramblings of a sock puppet.
It seems there is an increasing number of them on these boards.
He's clearly right. The ERG went weeks ago and we saw they had less than 48 true members. You probably laughed about that at the time.It seems there is an increasing number of them on these boards.
Last night 117 MPs voted with the ERG, clearly as we know ERG membership is less than 48, lots of non-ERG members have no confidence in May.
It's rather stating the obvious that it was those non-ERG no-confidencers that submitted letters after Monday's shambles and triggered the vote yesterday.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Coolbanana said:
You may think it to be as simple as you have described - and I don't disagree with you on that score entirely - but the Government has a duty to ensure that no undesirables can enter the UK unlawfully, and proving when an individual first arrived in the UK could be problematic in some cases.
The Government itself has repeatedly admitted it has no actual clue as to how many foreigners reside in the UK from the EU. It has never performed any actual checks which is its own failure - it is all estimated.
While you are obviously perfectly happy to accept a certain relatively low number of unlawful entry attempts, the Government cannot be so blasé about it. If someone is raped or murdered by someone in 10 years time and it emerged the perp entered via NI unchecked and was illegally residing in the UK, or the individuals true arrival could not be conclusively proven as being during FOM or not, it would raise some very uncomfortable questions and a Hard Border involving checks would be back in the spotlight.
Accepting a certain degree of leeway by applying the kind of logic you are using is all well and good for some applications, but for a Government wanting to be seen to be in control of its own Borders, it doesn't work.
AIUI Ireland has an almost identical border regime to us with the rest of the EU. Not being Schengen members we effectively patrol each others borders, and once you're into one you can travel fairly freely to the other. You could check when an individual entered Ireland as easily as you can now, and can guess at when they crossed from the Republic to the UK just as well as you can check when they crossed from Yorkshire to Lancashire. The Government itself has repeatedly admitted it has no actual clue as to how many foreigners reside in the UK from the EU. It has never performed any actual checks which is its own failure - it is all estimated.
While you are obviously perfectly happy to accept a certain relatively low number of unlawful entry attempts, the Government cannot be so blasé about it. If someone is raped or murdered by someone in 10 years time and it emerged the perp entered via NI unchecked and was illegally residing in the UK, or the individuals true arrival could not be conclusively proven as being during FOM or not, it would raise some very uncomfortable questions and a Hard Border involving checks would be back in the spotlight.
Accepting a certain degree of leeway by applying the kind of logic you are using is all well and good for some applications, but for a Government wanting to be seen to be in control of its own Borders, it doesn't work.
If it turned out that a series of brutal crimes are being perpetuated by people who have used this round about way to cross our borders (even though half of Iran seems capable of getting far enough out of Calais that the coast guard ferries them across anyway) then we might have to look again, but the idea that this warrants breaking up the UK and submitting the country to that hideous backstop arrangement until the EU feels like letting us out is ludicrous at best and more likely (or obviously, depending how cynical you are) a ploy to make the whole thing seem too difficult.
Ghibli said:
Im not tetchy. Gooner was discussing WTO then moved on to a second referendum and faux suede chairs for no reason.
I guess he is just trolling and wanting to be like dontbesilly.
"Genuine question, No trolling." I guess he is just trolling and wanting to be like dontbesilly.
The above are your own words chap.
Now why in the name of Bercow do you consider it necessary to state that.
gooner1 said:
Ghibli said:
Im not tetchy. Gooner was discussing WTO then moved on to a second referendum and faux suede chairs for no reason.
I guess he is just trolling and wanting to be like dontbesilly.
"Genuine question, No trolling." I guess he is just trolling and wanting to be like dontbesilly.
The above are your own words chap.
Now why in the name of Bercow do you consider it necessary to state that.
blade runner said:
On the issue of withholding information, is it correct that the government has still not released the complete legal advise on the WA to Parliament - only the part relating to the Irish backstop issue? Or have I got that wrong?
I don't know but would also like the answer to this. As far as I am aware they haven't released it all but if so why aren't people kicking up a fuss?
vonuber said:
So we get freedom of movement to the EU (EIRE) but they don't the other way around?
Same as we have now.There's a passport check to enter either UK or Ireland from another country and free travel between the two once you're there.
You would need a visa to live or work in the UK, and we would need a visa to live and work in the rest of the EU. I'm not actually sure what the arrangement was when we had a Common Travel Area with Ireland before the EU but I don't see any problem with allowing Irish citizens to live and work in the UK as now, and hopefully they would reciprocate that.
Anyway that's a visa issue but not really a border issue and as I said earlier it simply doesn't warrant a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic or a border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.
cb31 said:
I don't know but would also like the answer to this. As far as I am aware they haven't released it all but if so why aren't people kicking up a fuss?
Because there is probably more stuff in there that compromises the May deal even further. Notice how all the focus is about how it's only the backstop that is preventing the deal getting through. Seems to me that's she trying to move attention onto this one issue in the hope that all the other crap stuff in the WA gets overlooked.I really can't understand how they can get away with not releasing the complete legal advise seeing as the government was held in contempt of Parliament and directed to do so. Amazed no-one has spoken up about this yet.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff