Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[Gutter Boy]

So we wouldn't control our own borders. Any goods or immigrants could come in by the backdoor. If you're a refugee all you'd need is a plane ticket to ireland and you'd access London etc. It really makes no odds who puts border controls in does it? If border controls are there and the IRA are bombing London as they used to - anyone remember hearing the Brent Cross flyover bomb go off? - what does it matter who put the border up? Your suggestion is to ignore the issue and hope the problem will go away - it won't. So much for taking back contol.

Whats more you don't seem to see the irony of suggesting a 'solution' which emulates how the EU works now!

There'd still be border control for non-UK or Irish citizens at British ports and airports. Worst case scenario is that migrants end up stuck on wet and boggy cow farms in Coleraine, in which case returning to South Sudan might not seem so bad.

 

[Grays_1890]

What about the EU members for which we prop up with huge custom year in year out? How will the EU and those companies replace that custom?

 

[Grays_1890]

There'd still be border control for non-UK or Irish citizens at British ports and airports. Worst case scenario is that migrants end up stuck on wet and boggy cow farms in Coleraine, in which case returning to South Sudan might not seem so bad.

Haha exactly, they might make it to George Best International but they won't make London if they don't have the paperwork.

 

[scaramanga]

What about the EU members for which we prop up with huge custom year in year out? How will the EU and those companies replace that custom?

And the massive shortfall in their budget.

 

[Grays_1890]

And the massive shortfall in their budget.

Exactly

Gloves are off, lets party

 

[SpurMeUp]

That's the same disaster scenario rhetoric you've been spouting for months now. I asked you two specific questions (although the second was in an edit so you may have missed it).

1. Under what mechanism will the EU force Ireland to put up a border it doesn't want?
2. Where will the EU put the border that Ireland doesn't want?
   1. Between Ireland and NI (Ireland will veto)
   2. Between Ireland and the EU (Ireland will veto)

So let's forget the hyperbole and talk specifics. What exactly will the EU do to create a trade war? How can it even begin a trade war when it can't border off the country it wants said war with?

I don't know how "they'd force" Ireland to put up borders. But one thing is for sure: you can't have a free market customs union that has porous borders. That is an undeniable fact. If you choose to ignore this obvious fact, then that's you being short sighting and willing something to work, which actually doesn't.

2. A big part of the Brexit vote was about controlling our borders. Taking back control right? When a boatload of Romanians land in Hollyhead - people who freely entered Ireland on a Ryan Air flight - do you think our government wouldn't want to put in place some border control either!? It is all pie in the sky. It's a wish list which doesn't look at the reality.

If you have an Irish sea border then the Unionists in Ireland are sore, if you have a border in Ireland the IRA are. In short Brexit stuffs peace and the good friday agreement unless you have the UK as part of a customs union - which is what all Leave campaigners said we'd probably have. But when it was a prospect people understood it was worse than being in the EU, hence this move into a harder Brexit. Can't you see the folly of it all? It is trying to do the wrong thing "righter". And makes no sense. Just digging a hole for no benifit. What do we get out of all this trouble and difficulty? A worse trading setup than we have now! Whoop.

 

[SpurMeUp]

What about the EU members for which we prop up with huge custom year in year out? How will the EU and those companies replace that custom?

We're one of 28 nations. They have plenty other countries to sell to who have free trade. They lose 1 market, we lose 27. And they will drive new sales to the likes of Japan, Canada etc whom they have new and increasingly freer trade with that the EU has brokered using its 500m consumers to bargain with.

The EU would prefer to trade with us, but if we stick two fingers up at them, then we lose more. Isn't that obvious?

 

[SpurMeUp]

Exactly

Gloves are off, lets party

I think I get it. Essentially what you're after is a bit of a ruck with some European football fans? It's banter and fun to tell em to do one. It has no relation to trade, or UK prosperity. What is it we are celebrating. What are you gaining other than telling jonny forigner to do one?

 

[Gutter Boy]

I don't know how "they'd force" Ireland to put up borders. But one thing is for sure: you can't have a free market customs union that has porous borders. That is an undeniable fact. If you choose to ignore this obvious fact, then that's you being short sighting and willing something to work, which actually doesn't.

2. A big part of the Brexit vote was about controlling our borders. Taking back control right? When a boatload of Romanians land in Hollyhead - people who freely entered Ireland on a Ryan Air flight - do you think our government wouldn't want to put in place some border control either!? It is all pie in the sky. It's a wish list which doesn't look at the reality.

If you have an Irish sea border then the Unionists in Ireland are sore, if you have a border in Ireland the IRA are. In short Brexit stuffs peace and the good friday agreement unless you have the UK as part of a customs union - which is what all Leave campaigners said we'd probably have. But when it was a prospect people understood it was worse than being in the EU, hence this move into a harder Brexit. Can't you see the folly of it all? It is trying to do the wrong thing "righter". And makes no sense. Just digging a hole for no benifit. What do we get out of all this trouble and difficulty? A worse trading setup than we have now! Whoop.

Americans visiting Dublin can't currently just come to England - there's already an Irish sea border for that. The same will just apply to EU26 countries after 31 October - they'd need a travel visa. While Irish citizens would be covered by the CTA.

The issue isn't people, it's purely agri-food

 

[Grays_1890]

I think I get it. Essentially what you're after is a bit of a ruck with some European football fans? It's banter and fun to tell em to do one. It has no relation to trade, or UK prosperity. What is it we are celebrating. What are you gaining other than telling jonny forigner to do one?

I gain nothing, we just become one of the many super powers around the world that require papers to travel to and do business with.

My job is global and I have had a hard time travelling to many places around the world to do my job, has it stopped me doing so? No chance, I eat at the tables they set, I abide by their terms, I avail of their power and money and I do well financially for it.

Same applies to what we will achieve here.

You wait till Mercedes and BMW put so much pressure on the German government once the EU make it harder for them to sell cars to the UK, I will be sitting pretty with our charity bet, sipping Mojitos on my barge in St Katherines Dock saying I told you so.

 

[Grays_1890]

We're one of 28 nations. They have plenty other countries to sell to who have free trade. They lose 1 market, we lose 27. And they will drive new sales to the likes of Japan, Canada etc whom they have new and increasingly freer trade with that the EU has brokered using its 500m consumers to bargain with.

The EU would prefer to trade with us, but if we stick two fingers up at them, then we lose more. Isn't that obvious?

Canada won't buy German luxury cars there is no need or want for them as for 6-8 months of the year their is no use for them.

 

[Mikey10]

Ive seen for myself growing up people actively taking a benefit lifestyle as a career job. Its easy, get knocked up really young, go cap in hand to the council and youre set for life. Alternatively, give yourself a diagnosis of depression/anxiety and youre away, if kids arent your thing.

This all came up and exploded under Blair.

I’ve no doubt there are people who do this, although I would imagine there aren’t very many, contrary to what The Daily Mail would like us to believe (I wouldn’t think being on benefits would see people ‘set for life’).

I’m sure people being forced onto benefits may have become more prevalent around the time of Tony Blair being PM; after all, he followed Margaret Thatcher and John Major. The former closed down huge industries which employed hundreds of thousands of people with no plan for how those involved in them were going to be re-employed, or with any thought to altering the education system (both for adults and children) in those de-industrialised areas in a way which helped them to find jobs. The latter spent his time dealing with internal Tory party divisions (sound familiar?) and therefore did nothing of domestic note, aside from preside over a government mired in personal scandals.

So, Blair inherited a mess and, to my mind, he did a pretty good job of fixing it - until his ego got the better of him. He also did it in a way which seemed to have a sense of social justice - the opposite of Thatcher’s “There is no such thing as society” approach which fundamentally changed the nature of life in the UK, and not for the better imo.

I wouldn’t believe what the right-wing press feed the public about ‘benefit culture’. Better to focus on the likes of Google, Amazon and the like who are the ones really responsible for defrauding the public out of billions every year. Here’s today’s example:

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...x-rockstar-north-games?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

[scaramanga]

I don't know if our how "they'd force" Ireland to put up borders. But one thing is for sure: you can't have a free market customs union that has porous borders. That is an undeniable fact. If you choose to ignore this obvious fact, then that's you being short sighting and willing something to work, which actually doesn't.

I'm glad you don't claim to know the answer because I'll bet the EU doesn't either. Ireland has a veto, Ireland absolutely has to use that veto against any border between Ireland/NI or Ireland/EU. So that means the EU can't seal off their silly little bureauzone without breaking the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. Even if they tried, Ireland has a veto.

2. A big part of the Brexit vote was about controlling our borders. Taking back control right? When the boatloads of Romanians land in Hollyhead, are you suggesting our government wouldn't want some border control either? It is all pie in the sky. It's a wish list which doesn't look at the reality. If you have an Irish sea border then the Unionists in Ireland are sore, if you have a border in Ireland the IRA are. In short Brexit stuffs peace and the good friday agreement unless you have the UK as part of a customs union - which is what all Leave campaigners said we'd probably have. But when it was a prospect people understood it was worse than being in the EU, hence this move into a harder Brexit. Can't you see the folly of it all? It is trying to do the wrong thing "righter". And makes no sense. Just digging a hole for no benifit. What do we get out of all this trouble and difficulty? A worse trading setup than we have now! Whoop.

I recently flew from Southampton to Edinburgh and had to show a passport to get past security at the gate. Not a driver's license, not another form of photo ID, a passport. We don't have a border between Southampton and Edinburgh, but I couldn't have flown there without a passport.

The rest of this part is just the same hyperbole again. Until you can explain to me how the EU puts a border in Ireland whilst Ireland has a veto on such actions, you're wasting both of our time repeatedly typing the same nonsense.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

I’ve no doubt there are people who do this, although I would imagine there aren’t very many, contrary to what The Daily Mail would like us to believe (I wouldn’t think being on benefits would see people ‘set for life’).

I’m sure people being forced onto benefits may have become more prevalent around the time of Tony Blair being PM; after all, he followed Margaret Thatcher and John Major. The former closed down huge industries which employed hundreds of thousands of people with no plan for how those involved in them were going to be re-employed, or with any thought to altering the education system (both for adults and children) in those de-industrialised areas in a way which helped them to find jobs. The latter spent his time dealing with internal Tory party divisions (sound familiar?) and therefore did nothing of domestic note, aside from preside over a government mired in personal scandals.

So, Blair inherited a mess and, to my mind, he did a pretty good job of fixing it - until his ego got the better of him. He also did it in a way which seemed to have a sense of social justice - the opposite of Thatcher’s “There is no such thing as society” approach which fundamentally changed the nature of life in the UK, and not for the better imo.

I wouldn’t believe what the right-wing press feed the public about ‘benefit culture’. Better to focus on the likes of Google, Amazon and the like who are the ones really responsible for defrauding the public out of billions every year. Here’s today’s example:

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...x-rockstar-north-games?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Never read the Daily Mail in my life. In fact I dont subscribe to any particular outlet. Rather I read a bit here and there on any given matter.

The case of how many people are doing this is, IMO, very much a geographical thing.

The town where I grew up? Probably half the population. The greater area? Certainly a very significant %.

And Im not talking about people being forced onto benefits. Hard times can happen to anyone and I certainly do not begrudge help being there when they need it. Those people, I would suggest, are also quite likely to get their lives together again and in time not be in need of benefits.

Im talking about the people that see it as a lifestyle. People so apathetic, lazy and lacking in ambition (vision?) that they make no attempt to succeed, because their full intention is letting the state sort them out instead.

THESE people, this population, was the product of Blairs "everyone deserves everything" approach.

In the same way that people eat themselves into obesity and then expect the NHS to fund gastric bypasses to fix things for them, or instead of learning the value and beauty in what they are - expect the NHS to give them a boob job to help their own self worth.

All of this type of stuff was perpetuated under his government, and its all counter productive IMHO.

However, its what we now have. And what we now have to deal with, thanks to Blair. I dread to think the cost of those policies...

 

[scaramanga]

I’ve no doubt there are people who do this, although I would imagine there aren’t very many, contrary to what The Daily Mail would like us to believe (I wouldn’t think being on benefits would see people ‘set for life’).

I’m sure people being forced onto benefits may have become more prevalent around the time of Tony Blair being PM; after all, he followed Margaret Thatcher and John Major. The former closed down huge industries which employed hundreds of thousands of people with no plan for how those involved in them were going to be re-employed, or with any thought to altering the education system (both for adults and children) in those de-industrialised areas in a way which helped them to find jobs. The latter spent his time dealing with internal Tory party divisions (sound familiar?) and therefore did nothing of domestic note, aside from preside over a government mired in personal scandals.

So, Blair inherited a mess and, to my mind, he did a pretty good job of fixing it - until his ego got the better of him. He also did it in a way which seemed to have a sense of social justice - the opposite of Thatcher’s “There is no such thing as society” approach which fundamentally changed the nature of life in the UK, and not for the better imo.

I wouldn’t believe what the right-wing press feed the public about ‘benefit culture’. Better to focus on the likes of Google, Amazon and the like who are the ones really responsible for defrauding the public out of billions every year. Here’s today’s example:

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...x-rockstar-north-games?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Spend some time speaking to teachers who teach in brick schools in brick areas. They will all tell you (after a couple of gins) that for at least 15 years there has been a group of kids who aspire to nothing more than getting a free house and free money. The sad thing is that some of them are actually capable of achieving something - possibly going on to uni. Most of the girls have 2 or 3 kids by their early 20s and are happy because they're set up with a really big house. We've met plenty that my wife has taught.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I'm glad you don't claim to know the answer because I'll bet the EU doesn't either. Ireland has a veto, Ireland absolutely has to use that veto against any border between Ireland/NI or Ireland/EU. So that means the EU can't seal off their silly little bureauzone without breaking the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. Even if they tried, Ireland has a veto.


I recently flew from Southampton to Edinburgh and had to show a passport to get past security at the gate. Not a driver's license, not another form of photo ID, a passport. We don't have a border between Southampton and Edinburgh, but I couldn't have flown there without a passport.

The rest of this part is just the same hyperbole again. Until you can explain to me how the EU puts a border in Ireland whilst Ireland has a veto on such actions, you're wasting both of our time repeatedly typing the same nonsense.

And until you can explain how you have a customs union with porousborders likewise. We have a customs union now. It works. We don't have this hypothetical setup of 'playing the EU' now. We have no idea how that plays out. But if you think we can play them, or dictate terms, while they also give us preferential trade terms...you're more deluded than I thought!

 

[scaramanga]

And until you can explain how you have a customs union with porousborders likewise. We have a customs union now. It works. We don't have this hypothetical setup of 'playing the EU' now. We have no idea how that plays out. But if you think we can play them, or dictate terms, while they also give us preferential trade terms...you're more deluded than I thought!

That's precisely my point! The EU cannot enforce borders, they cannot enforce tariffs and they cannot enforce their regulations on us without putting a border in Ireland.

That's the entire point of what I've been saying. They want to lock us out of their customs union, but the only way to make that happen is to put a border in Ireland or to put a border between Ireland and the EU. Ireland would veto both.

It doesn't matter what trade terms they try to impose because we can just walk all our goods across the non-border.

So the EU cannot have a customs union without borders, it cannot put a border in where there isn't one, so it has to work out some kind of tariff-free equivalence between our markets.

 

[Rorschach]

There will be a border erected in a no deal scenario. The preparation has been done for this.

 

[SpurMeUp]

That's precisely my point! The EU cannot enforce borders, they cannot enforce tariffs and they cannot enforce their regulations on us without putting a border in Ireland.

That's the entire point of what I've been saying. They want to lock us out of their customs union, but the only way to make that happen is to put a border in Ireland or to put a border between Ireland and the EU. Ireland would veto both.

It doesn't matter what trade terms they try to impose because we can just walk all our goods across the non-border.

So the EU cannot have a customs union without borders, it cannot put a border in where there isn't one, so it has to work out some kind of tariff-free equivalence between our markets.

So you've 'gamed' the EU? Sadly it doesn't work. We're not going to smuggel our goods via Ireland in some kind of surreptitious system to avoid tariffs. It's not going to work. Action would be taken whether at the French border or with penalities. In short you end up with a border. Who cares who erects it or where. It is a fantasy to suggest there wouldn't be a border. And as mentioned, England would want full border controls to see who's coming in and out. Once you have that border, there is an ideological as well as physical barrier. One that has been associated with violence for 100 years.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Equivalence is the key word in this. That's all the EU has to do, agree on the mutual recognition of British standards and regulatory regimes, either in general or in the specific sectors they care about (i.e. agri-foods).

The EU already does this with other non-EU countries (e.g. data equivalence with the US).