Regarding the CAP, if we're going to keep subsidizing European farmers so we don't starve if something happens to the food markets, I'd much rather we rotted the surplus and turned it into biofuels than the current "solution" of dumping it on Africa, fething farmers there over. It'd give African farmers a chance to make money without being crushed by our surplus and would reduce European dependency on Russia and Saudi Arabia.
But if it turns out that Remain had no plan for EU reform, after having spent 2 years criticising Leave for having no Brexit plan...
Well, that makes Remain look just as bad...
Why? The choice was leave or stay. Only leave needed a plan. Stay could be retain the status quo. It was not "Do this or that" it was "do this or nothing". Yes, we could stay and reform, but it did not require a plan. Leaving 100% did always require a plan, and remain said that there was none, and that was true. Some people said that we should stay and reform from the inside, but not the vast majority of remain supporters. Leave however always required a plan, and the vast majority seem to have gone with, I don't like where we are, so lets change it, but how we do it is someone else's problem.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Regarding the CAP, if we're going to keep subsidizing European farmers so we don't starve if something happens to the food markets, I'd much rather we rotted the surplus and turned it into biofuels than the current "solution" of dumping it on Africa, fething farmers there over. It'd give African farmers a chance to make money without being crushed by our surplus and would reduce European dependency on Russia and Saudi Arabia.
That does require a change in our approach to waste though. Even in this circumstance it costs more to produce biofuels in this way because of both infrastructure and legislative reasons. It is simply more cost effective to dump surplus on other markets at mark down costs then it is to dispose of it. In particular the UK has more stringent rules on food waste than the EU because of the Foot and Mouth outbreak in 2001. Hence all food waste has to treated in sealed containers and must reach minimum temperatures over a certain number of days to kill any bugs. In the UK if an apple drops of a tree you can put it in the composting bin as if it was green waste. If you take it into your kitchen and then dispose of it, it has to be treated as food waste. This is UK specific legislation.
In any case the EU is more open with every passing year.
Most of Africa trades under preferential deals for all agricultural goods, the new trade deal with Mercosur Will make it even easier for Chilean, Peruvian, Brazilian, etc. Fruit to get here.
Dairy and meat is where stuff gets iffy, mostly because it's a very powerful lobby in Northern and Central countries like France, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, etc.
Future War Cultist wrote: Join the euro and create an eu army? That’s fething mental. Absolutely fething mental.
Why?
Because it will be run by Germany? The last time you had an army for the "Greater Europe" there was an awful lot of goose stepping.
Because modern Germany has so much in common with Nazi Germany, might as well worry about France deciding to invade everywhere and redcoats on the shores of the US
Future War Cultist wrote: Join the euro and create an eu army? That’s fething mental. Absolutely fething mental.
Why?
Because it will be run by Germany? The last time you had an army for the "Greater Europe" there was an awful lot of goose stepping.
So you are saying because of their history it is inevitable that they are trying to repeat that with other armies. Both the UK and France have stronger militaries (6th/5th respectively). Do you think they would willingly join forces if Germany was trying to recreate a Nazi state? I'd argue that Germany is that last country that will likely tread that path because it is so very aware of the history of the last 100 years.
To get back to the point, the EU is creating a common brigade structure of some kind. In the long result of time it might become the basis for an EU army. I don't think that would happen for one to two generations.
Future War Cultist wrote: Join the euro and create an eu army? That’s fething mental. Absolutely fething mental.
Why?
Because it will be run by Germany? The last time you had an army for the "Greater Europe" there was an awful lot of goose stepping.
I'll be honest, the way things are with the US at the minute, Europe needs it's own defence capability separate from NATO. With the cycle of republican destructiveness and an unreliable and unstable POTUS, even after Trump, the US is less able, or willing to count itself as an ally.
I've served with US Marines, soldiers and airmen and they are superb examples of professionalism, loyalty and honour, their politicians however.....
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Regarding the CAP, if we're going to keep subsidizing European farmers so we don't starve if something happens to the food markets, I'd much rather we rotted the surplus and turned it into biofuels than the current "solution" of dumping it on Africa, fething farmers there over. It'd give African farmers a chance to make money without being crushed by our surplus and would reduce European dependency on Russia and Saudi Arabia.
That does require a change in our approach to waste though. Even in this circumstance it costs more to produce biofuels in this way because of both infrastructure and legislative reasons. It is simply more cost effective to dump surplus on other markets at mark down costs then it is to dispose of it. In particular the UK has more stringent rules on food waste than the EU because of the Foot and Mouth outbreak in 2001. Hence all food waste has to treated in sealed containers and must reach minimum temperatures over a certain number of days to kill any bugs. In the UK if an apple drops of a tree you can put it in the composting bin as if it was green waste. If you take it into your kitchen and then dispose of it, it has to be treated as food waste. This is UK specific legislation.
Yes it's more expensive, but then again so is subsidizing European farmers in the first place. The end result would be spending more money in order to reduce dependency on Russia and Saudi Arabia while giving African farmers some breathing room, while also helping to push research into more efficient renewable fuels.
Remain : "I'm not totally happy with these trousers. They're not quite the right size, the colour's not perfect and it's a little bit more expensive than I would prefer. Still generally alright, though, and the shop doesn't have any other types at the moment - I could start talking to the management about expanding their stock"
Leave : "You don't like those trousers. I HATE ALL TROUSERS. Something must be done! CUT OFF YOUR LEGS"
R: "I think that's a bit of an overreaction"
L: "Do you have a plan?"
R: "Well, no, it's not something I'm that worried about"
L: "But I do have a plan. We MUST follow that. LEG CUTTING TIME"
I don't know if people have heard this news, but May has announced that al Brexit negotiations will be handled by the Cabinet office, with the Brexit department being downgraded.
Utter, utter, utter, utter, stupidity from May.
If you read grassroots Conservation forums, they are already convinced that May and Olly Robbins have been doing this deliberately for months anyway, and it's a red rag to a bull for them. They think May is orchestrating a Remain stich up.
She's only giving ammo to Bojo and Davis, and has just pulled the rug from underneath Raab's feet.
Conservative MPs are heading home this summer, and will be meeting with their local associations and the grassroots. There's mutiny in the air in the Tory shires, and those MPs will be getting it in the ear.
To get back to the point, the EU is creating a common brigade structure of some kind. In the long result of time it might become the basis for an EU army. I don't think that would happen for one to two generations.
To save time, this reply is to other Remain members as well as Kilkrazy.
I'm not against European co-operation in military matters. I support it because it's in our geostratgic interest.
But why duplicate exisiting military structures when we have NATO?
People will point to Trump, and I get that, but there's nothing in the NATO treaty that says the USA has to be involved in every NATO matter.
If Britain, France, and Germany got together for a big exercise with Poland, that's within the NATO rules.
If Iceland and Norway did Arctic training together, nobody would bat and eyelid.
No obviously, the USA is the most improtant member, but everybody else can still help each other. The USA wouldn't object to that.
But if it turns out that Remain had no plan for EU reform, after having spent 2 years criticising Leave for having no Brexit plan...
Well, that makes Remain look just as bad...
Why? The choice was leave or stay. Only leave needed a plan. Stay could be retain the status quo. It was not "Do this or that" it was "do this or nothing". Yes, we could stay and reform, but it did not require a plan. Leaving 100% did always require a plan, and remain said that there was none, and that was true. Some people said that we should stay and reform from the inside, but not the vast majority of remain supporters. Leave however always required a plan, and the vast majority seem to have gone with, I don't like where we are, so lets change it, but how we do it is someone else's problem.
The problem with reform the EU is that it's a vague and undefined moving target. It's a political mirage wheeled out by EU supporters.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: The Euro is flawed, but solving those flaws requires more european integration.
Too much of a hard sell.
Strangely, a two, or even 3 speed Europe, might have been the way forward.
I'm not against European co-operation in military matters. I support it because it's in our geostratgic interest.
But why duplicate exisiting military structures when we have NATO?
People will point to Trump, and I get that, but there's nothing in the NATO treaty that says the USA has to be involved in every NATO matter.
If Britain, France, and Germany got together for a big exercise with Poland, that's within the NATO rules.
If Iceland and Norway did Arctic training together, nobody would bat and eyelid.
No obviously, the USA is the most improtant member, but everybody else can still help each other. The USA wouldn't object to that.
It's not just Trump. NATO was built with one and only one objective in mind and that is to contain the USSR under American guidance.
Everyone else is a junior partner.
The aim of the joint European military structure is not to be a vote in the American machine but to be its independently capable machine. Mostly by spending better rather than spending more as individual member state budgets cannot hope to achieve the same effective effect as a bigger one.
To get back to the point, the EU is creating a common brigade structure of some kind. In the long result of time it might become the basis for an EU army. I don't think that would happen for one to two generations.
Indeed, to be serious though, EU. Brigades would be run by Brussels right? Who's in charge? Why are you putting the risk of your nation going to war in the hands of Brussels?
I think it's just going to be done for manoeuvres and practicing to start with. No doubt part of this will be to work out the command structure that would be followed for actual military action.
No-one believes there is going to be a "real" war in Europe in the near future. The combined brigade would be used for things like intervening in a second Balkans civil war. You probably remember the EU took a lot of stick for doing so little when the real events happened.
In this kind of scenario, an EU parliament vote could be used to commit a brigade with a set of mission parameters. There would not need to be any close political oversight during the operation.
To get back to the point, the EU is creating a common brigade structure of some kind. In the long result of time it might become the basis for an EU army. I don't think that would happen for one to two generations.
Indeed, to be serious though, EU. Brigades would be run by Brussels right? Who's in charge? Why are you putting the risk of your nation going to war in the hands of Brussels?
The principle from what I have read is that individual nations would still have control over their military. Instead there would be a kind of central command and control which allows them to direct operations. For example if their was a natural disaster that the EU militaries all turned up with bed rolls to help civilians, but no one brought anything to distribute them or get them off the ships/vehicles etc. Same goes for things like helping with illegal migration and different navy's falling over each other.
There is also the advantage of streamlining logistics. Basically that if the UK army was operating in Italy that the logistical support is effectively EU wide and hence there won't be any conflicts in how things are provided. For example imagine the US military moved across into a different state and found all the bullets stored were for different armaments than they had.
To understand the reasons why the EU might want to develop a military capability of some sort, and also why there are serious constraints on that possibility, it's worth remembering two things.
1) Not all EU members are members of NATO, i.e. Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta and Sweden.
2) Some EU members are neutrals. They may be militarised neutrals with a keen interest in their own defence like Sweden, or they may teeter on the edge of pacifism like the Republic of Ireland but either way they have long-standing policies that reject membership in military alliances.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I don't know if people have heard this news, but May has announced that al Brexit negotiations will be handled by the Cabinet office, with the Brexit department being downgraded.
Utter, utter, utter, utter, stupidity from May.
Given how well she managed to answer a question about what she did in her spare time, I somehow doubt this will add much benefit. Got be sorry for, or laugh at Raab; I mean he had one meeting and he's been sidelined. What do you think he came back with - a brilliant option to rejoin the EU.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think it's just going to be done for manoeuvres and practicing to start with. No doubt part of this will be to work out the command structure that would be followed for actual military action.
No-one believes there is going to be a "real" war in Europe in the near future. The combined brigade would be used for things like intervening in a second Balkans civil war. You probably remember the EU took a lot of stick for doing so little when the real events happened.
In this kind of scenario, an EU parliament vote could be used to commit a brigade with a set of mission parameters. There would not need to be any close political oversight during the operation.
And if that brigade gets surrounded and its troops executed on live TV? Now the UK is in a war because...reasons.
Many wars have started for less. The UK has been able to avoid many conflicts since WWII including hot wars related to the Cold War. Do you really want to screw that up?
monarda wrote: To understand the reasons why the EU might want to develop a military capability of some sort, and also why there are serious constraints on that possibility, it's worth remembering two things.
1) Not all EU members are members of NATO, i.e. Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta and Sweden.
2) Some EU members are neutrals. They may be militarised neutrals with a keen interest in their own defence like Sweden, or they may teeter on the edge of pacifism like the Republic of Ireland but either way they have long-standing policies that reject membership in military alliances.
Ireland has been historically neutral and non-aligned and let's be honest, any attack on Ireland by a third party would automatically see the UK having to intervene for obvious reasons of close proximity.
Apologies to Republic of Ireland dakka members for saying this, and I hope I've not worded this poorly for obvious historical reasons, but Ireland by its very close location, is under 'UK protection.'
Is there not a secret protocol in place that sees the RAF intercept Russian military planes over Irish airspace?
If the Soviets had invaded Ireland, the UK would have to help Ireland. And for the record, thousands of Irish men from both sides of the border helped Britain defeat the Nazis. IMO, Britain would have a historic debt to help Dublin in the unlikely event of a 3rd party attacking the Republic.
Cyprus and Malta are Commonwealth members. I believe Britain would defend them anyway, NATO or not.
Nobody would invade Finland.
And again, I doubt if Germany would allow anybody to walk into Austria for obvious reasons of close proximity.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I don't know if people have heard this news, but May has announced that al Brexit negotiations will be handled by the Cabinet office, with the Brexit department being downgraded.
Utter, utter, utter, utter, stupidity from May.
Given how well she managed to answer a question about what she did in her spare time, I somehow doubt this will add much benefit. Got be sorry for, or laugh at Raab; I mean he had one meeting and he's been sidelined. What do you think he came back with - a brilliant option to rejoin the EU.
That was also a rather evil sounding laugh. Like Mr Burns.
I see a summer of discontent, with mutiny simmering under the surface. Don't forget that Sir Graham Brady has an old fashioned post box.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I think it's just going to be done for manoeuvres and practicing to start with. No doubt part of this will be to work out the command structure that would be followed for actual military action.
No-one believes there is going to be a "real" war in Europe in the near future. The combined brigade would be used for things like intervening in a second Balkans civil war. You probably remember the EU took a lot of stick for doing so little when the real events happened.
In this kind of scenario, an EU parliament vote could be used to commit a brigade with a set of mission parameters. There would not need to be any close political oversight during the operation.
Why the EU parliament though? You and other Remain supporters have long argued about the openness and democracy of the EU, everybody's equal etc etc
Surely this decision to intervene in the Balkans if the gak hit the fan, would be down to individual governments?
Some might object, and they might not agree to the EU parliament having the final say in the first place.
The question of who would make the final decision would be a difficult one to agree. Nobody likes to see another nation squander their troops.
To get back to the point, the EU is creating a common brigade structure of some kind. In the long result of time it might become the basis for an EU army. I don't think that would happen for one to two generations.
To save time, this reply is to other Remain members as well as Kilkrazy.
I'm not against European co-operation in military matters. I support it because it's in our geostratgic interest.
But why duplicate exisiting military structures when we have NATO?
People will point to Trump, and I get that, but there's nothing in the NATO treaty that says the USA has to be involved in every NATO matter.
If Britain, France, and Germany got together for a big exercise with Poland, that's within the NATO rules.
If Iceland and Norway did Arctic training together, nobody would bat and eyelid.
No obviously, the USA is the most improtant member, but everybody else can still help each other. The USA wouldn't object to that.
Because NATO structures, treaties and rules are a relic of the Cold War and aren't very well suited to the modern world. And because they encourage over-reliance on the US, which may not always be the reliable partner and ally it has been in the past. The way NATO command structures are organised makes it hard to do much without the US. Not to mention NATO includes countries like Turkey which really do not belong there because they are not friends or allies at all, and some countries that are in the EU are not actually in NATO. An EU military would basically be an updated, more reliable NATO, without the reliance on the US (who would remain allied to European countries through NATO or an updated north Atlantic alliance structure).
1) Not all EU members are members of NATO, i.e. Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta and Sweden.
2) Some EU members are neutrals. They may be militarised neutrals with a keen interest in their own defence like Sweden, or they may teeter on the edge of pacifism like the Republic of Ireland but either way they have long-standing policies that reject membership in military alliances.
And 3) The EU has a mutual defence clause that's stronger than the one in NATO (i.e. not geographically constrained and automatically triggered in case of an attack, no need for notification). For example, anything happening to French or Dutch possessions in the Caribbean or Pacific are outside the scope of NATO. Likewise, tensions between Greece and/or Cyprus and an increasingly unstable Turkey are also outside the scope of NATO since Turkey is a member.
A joint reaction force is only part of the whole thing (EUFOR) which basically works very much like NATO with some units earmarked as under joint command in case something goes wrong, but ultimately under national authority. Most of the early work is to develop joint capabilities, joint purchasing and developing of systems, a "military schengen" to improve deployment times (mostly with an eye to the East, for the most part).
The underlying idea is that European defence forces can do much better without necessarily spending more. Just by letting economies of scale kick in.
Plus, NATO says they're totally cool with Europe being better at defending themselves.
So DUP have had to suspend an MP for corruption(stop giggling at the back) and it may trigger a byelection do we get a refund on the bribe?
Some people seem to think not an issue as just drag another flat earther in but apparently there is some unhappiness with the DUP in the area.
If Paisley has to contest a by-election without DUP support (or even with it) he may have some troubles:
"@IRLPatricia
6 hours ago
Man in Ballymena coffee shop this morning reading about Ian Paisley. I asked him "what do you make of that?" His response: "His 2 holidays cost 3 times what I got in redundancy from Michelin. If he comes to my door lookin' my vote again I'll be like his Da - never, never, never!
BREAKING: Raab promises government will "make sure there is adequate food" in Britain in the event of no Brexit deal. But says it is wrong to say government itself is stockpiling.
And if that brigade gets surrounded and its troops executed on live TV? Now the UK is in a war because...reasons.
Many wars have started for less. The UK has been able to avoid many conflicts since WWII including hot wars related to the Cold War. Do you really want to screw that up?
Right.... and how often does that happen in the world. The UK was also involved in other wars as well...that have nothing to do with the cold war. I think I'd prefer to know that there were 27 allies all coming to the rescue rather than try and sort it out on our own. The combined military expenditure of the EU easily outweighs Russia and if Trump got his way and every nation put 4% then probably would be comparable to the US's expenditure.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Cyprus and Malta are Commonwealth members. I believe Britain would defend them anyway, NATO or not.
Cyprus was invaded by Turkey in 1974. Grenada was invaded by the United States in 1983. Both countries were in the Commonwealth at the time. Neither was defended by the UK.
jouso wrote:And 3) The EU has a mutual defence clause that's stronger than the one in NATO (i.e. not geographically constrained and automatically triggered in case of an attack, no need for notification). For example, anything happening to French or Dutch possessions in the Caribbean or Pacific are outside the scope of NATO. Likewise, tensions between Greece and/or Cyprus and an increasingly unstable Turkey are also outside the scope of NATO since Turkey is a member.
This is not correct. As the European Parliament website explains when discussing the only time it has been invoked, following the terrorist attacks in Paris in November 2015:
European Parliament website wrote:The mutual defence clause was introduced in 2009 under Article 42 (7) of the Treaty of the European Union. It says that EU countries are obliged to assist a fellow member state that has become “a victim of armed aggression on its territory” and that this support should be consistent with potential NATO commitments.
No formal procedure has been set out and the article does not say that the assistance should be military in nature, so countries such as Austria, Finland, Ireland and Sweden that have a policy of neutrality, can still cooperate.
This is a considerably weaker commitment than Article 5 of the NATO treaty which commits each member state to consider an armed attack against one member state, in Europe or North America, to be an armed attack against them all.
SeanDrake wrote: So DUP have had to suspend an MP for corruption(stop giggling at the back) and it may trigger a byelection do we get a refund on the bribe?
Some people seem to think not an issue as just drag another flat earther in but apparently there is some unhappiness with the DUP in the area.
If Paisley has to contest a by-election without DUP support (or even with it) he may have some troubles:
"@IRLPatricia
6 hours ago
Man in Ballymena coffee shop this morning reading about Ian Paisley. I asked him "what do you make of that?" His response: "His 2 holidays cost 3 times what I got in redundancy from Michelin. If he comes to my door lookin' my vote again I'll be like his Da - never, never, never!
Sadly if there even is a by-election Ian Óg will waltz right back into his position. Even without the DUP backing him I'd say he'd have a decent chance of winning but can't see it coming too that, members including their leader have done worse. Though I do wonder if a man who can't remember anything of 4 helicopter trips on a luxury holiday is really mentally fit to be in parliament?
In terms of EU reform; I'd like to see an end to the 2nd parliament. Potentially re-instate it as some form of 2nd chamber, but at least axe the expense of moving everything.
I'd put something in place to prevent MEP's taking a salary/pension but never turning up - some form of minimum attendance or valid justification.
I'd potentially turn the Euro into a trading currency and encourage the EU states to be seamlessly dual currency, with a variable exchange rate from EUR/local. By dual I mean EUR and local currencies are accepted everywhere in the same way and buyers can use whatever one they want.
But most likely I'd like the UK to actually get involved, and insist their MEP's actually do something.
Not that it matters. I'd take the EU as it is now over any flavour of Brexit any day. I'd take an EU without our opt-outs over any flavour of Brexit. But then I feel the superstate is the next natural evolution in the way towards a united planet.
Ireland has been historically neutral and non-aligned and let's be honest, any attack on Ireland by a third party would automatically see the UK having to intervene for obvious reasons of close proximity.
Apologies to Republic of Ireland dakka members for saying this, and I hope I've not worded this poorly for obvious historical reasons, but Ireland by its very close location, is under 'UK protection.'
Is there not a secret protocol in place that sees the RAF intercept Russian military planes over Irish airspace?
If the Soviets had invaded Ireland, the UK would have to help Ireland. And for the record, thousands of Irish men from both sides of the border helped Britain defeat the Nazis. IMO, Britain would have a historic debt to help Dublin in the unlikely event of a 3rd party attacking the Republic.
Cyprus and Malta are Commonwealth members. I believe Britain would defend them anyway, NATO or not.
Nobody would invade Finland.
And again, I doubt if Germany would allow anybody to walk into Austria for obvious reasons of close proximity.
Sounds like pretty solid reasoning behind an EU organised army - we're going to step in and help each other anyway, so we may as well take advantage of economies of scale and share resources.
We have to stop pretending all these far right and far left movements that are so pally with the Russians are "patriots". The Front National was similarly a patron of Russia, the far right across Europe is funded by them (hilariously, given how shrill Russia is about Nazis).
Brexit was aided and abetted by Russians.
I hope there is some sort of nasty counter intelligence response underway. There need to be consequences for this bs.
Other than Russia. The Russian government have been quite clear that they have designs on Finland. It’s unlikely to happen, but if any country in Europe Finland is at most risk of being attacked.
Da Boss wrote: The last time Russia invaded Finland it did not go well for them.
Hmm.
The Russians won the winter war. Imperial guard tactics to be fair, but they still won.
And when the finns had a go later in the war, it didn't go too well for them then either. Russians took back all the lost territory, and a bit extra on to point of it.
Da Boss wrote: We have to stop pretending all these far right and far left movements that are so pally with the Russians are "patriots". The Front National was similarly a patron of Russia, the far right across Europe is funded by them (hilariously, given how shrill Russia is about Nazis). Brexit was aided and abetted by Russians.
I hope there is some sort of nasty counter intelligence response underway. There need to be consequences for this bs.
Russia hates fascists more than most (for good reason, see WW2), but it is also more pragmatic than most countries. If you can manipulate the fascists for a good old-fashioned game of "divide and conquer", then why wouldn't you use the fascists? I mean, they had to try something after plan A: "Convince everyone Communism is the most awesome thing ever and start revolutions everywhere" failed.
Da Boss wrote: The last time Russia invaded Finland it did not go well for them.
Hmm.
The Russians won the winter war. Imperial guard tactics to be fair, but they still won.
And when the finns had a go later in the war, it didn't go too well for them then either. Russians took back all the lost territory, and a bit extra on to point of it.
Yeah, Russia won both wars against Finland, although the first victory came at a higher cost than expected because a certain I.V. Stalin thought it'd be a great idea to kill all officers in his army. "Yeah, an army without any sort of leadership! It will be great! Also, put everything under control of bureaucratic Party paper pushers. That will make everything even less effective, they'll never be able to stage a coup against me ever!". It was even worse because the surviving officers were pretty much all rivals of one another. Still, the Red Army accomplished all of its goals and took a significant portion of Finnish territory. Pretty much the Imperial Guard in real life.
Herzlos wrote: In terms of EU reform; I'd like to see an end to the 2nd parliament. Potentially re-instate it as some form of 2nd chamber, but at least axe the expense of moving everything.
I'd put something in place to prevent MEP's taking a salary/pension but never turning up - some form of minimum attendance or valid justification.
The problem with the second parliament is that in order to remove it you'll have to remove france's veto. The only way to do that is to remove all vetos.
It's like you brexiters think you're pointing out a brilliant but unseen problem we have all missed but your not!
All the other countrys know its a waste and have voted against it several times but france just goes non slaps down veto.
I also find it ironic that the side demanding sovereignty at the expense of the economy (money)
is demanding that france gives up its sovereignty (the 2nd parliament it wants to keep) for money!
I would be happy for agriculture reforms. I cant see why your EU support should be based on how much land you own, not how much you produce or how much you need to be profitable or whatever.
I also think it should stop growing, i get what it's trying to do but alot of these countrys are too different economically, politically etc.
The euro would have worked if it was just the big 3 or maybe a few of the others after they have jumped through some big hoops but it was rolled out in economys that were too different e.g. spain, greece etc
all of it's problems have come from one country needing a different fiscal policy to another.
Future War Cultist wrote: Why? The euro is a political project not bound by economic reality, and it’s killing the economies of the poorer performers. Having one interest rate and a fixed exchange rate among all those different economies is a big mistake that’s already nearly spilled over twice. Here, this explains it better:
But if anyone is so fething stupid as to be still championing that thing then there’s little I can say that’ll change their minds. Contrarianism is an awful thing to be sure.
As for the push to create an EU army, who controls it? What do you plan to do with it? What’s wrong with Nato?
Wwhat's wrong with nato? Howabout it's led by one of the most aggressive countries that is not our friend, and whose president has indeed quoted aus as their enemies. We can't rely on it's help. We are lucky to avoid their invasion by made up charges like they like to do!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
monarda wrote: [
This is a considerably weaker commitment than Article 5 of the NATO treaty which commits each member state to consider an armed attack against one member state, in Europe or North America, to be an armed attack against them all.
Famous art 5 does not define what aid must be given. Medicine and harsh words to invader fullfills it
Other than Russia. The Russian government have been quite clear that they have designs on Finland. It’s unlikely to happen, but if any country in Europe Finland is at most risk of being attacked.
What for though? Albeit it would be easy win for russia but what on earth they would be gaining from that useless piece of land worth spending money to invade it. Think russia has enough trees already
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: The last time Russia invaded Finland it did not go well for them.
Thanks to stalin and us. Soviets did beat us both times. If the anti-soviet normandy invasion hadn't hurried soviet though they would have got us.we were beaten and on the run. Luckily for us berlin and germany were bigger prize.
Herzlos wrote: In terms of EU reform; I'd like to see an end to the 2nd parliament. Potentially re-instate it as some form of 2nd chamber, but at least axe the expense of moving everything.
I'd put something in place to prevent MEP's taking a salary/pension but never turning up - some form of minimum attendance or valid justification.
The problem with the second parliament is that in order to remove it you'll have to remove france's veto. The only way to do that is to remove all vetos.
It's like you brexiters think you're pointing out a brilliant but unseen problem we have all missed but your not!
All the other countrys know its a waste and have voted against it several times but france just goes non slaps down veto.
That's why I think it might be an easier sell to re purpose it as a 2nd chamber. If we need to keep it running we may as well use it for something and skip this moving back and forward farce.
But in reality it doesn't cost that much and I'd rather have it than Brexit.
Sorry, sorry, all this talk of how the EU could be better is very interesting but then the phase "adequate food" drifts across my train of thought and suddenly it doesn't seem all that important.
I'm not against reforming the EU where it would make an improvement, but we Brits need to acknowledge that we've got much worse problems right in our own islands than there being two EU parliament buildings or a combined army brigade.
Pulling some quotes from a recent opinion piece in The Guardina says it very well:
"Political shocks such as Brexit would simply not have happened in a country whose population was satisfied with the order of things.
...
"Whatever one thinks of communism, we need to ask whether a capitalist system that is fraying at the seams as much as ours is can really be said to be functioning.
...
"A no-deal Brexit would be bad, but the rot in our political and economic system goes much deeper, and anyone who thinks otherwise simply hasn’t been paying attention."
Plus, we can hardly reform the EU from the outside, and pulling out is making it far more difficult to reform our own polity.
Issues like Grenfell, Universal Credit, Free Academy schools, Student Debt, and lack of housing, have all been pushed to one side because for two years the focus of the government has been on prevention of a Conservative Party explosion.
This has to stop. We have to work to create a new constitution which will enable us to elect parliaments capable of dealing with these problems.
Graphite wrote: Sorry, sorry, all this talk of how the EU could be better is very interesting but then the phase "adequate food" drifts across my train of thought and suddenly it doesn't seem all that important.
Yeah the fact these Muppets could not organize a piss up in a brewery makes that statement sound a little hollow.
You will likely want a weapon of some sort as well given that guns are heavily restricted melee is most likely were it will be.
Remember the Armies plans state that 24hrs after the food runs out the riots start, the government assessment states that the food runs out after 48-72hrs and petrol in 5 days, so we will likely have martial law and troops on the streets protecting MP's by 3-4 April 2019 If it's a hard Brexit. The hilarious thing is that is not even the worst scenario it's just the government won't release the one code named Armaggedon.
I'm not against reforming the EU where it would make an improvement, but we Brits need to acknowledge that we've got much worse problems right in our own islands than there being two EU parliament buildings or a combined army brigade.
Yes, but we have but a lot of the arguments against the EU are these petty things that in the grand scheme is making a mountain out of a molehill. The parliament issue for example has been used as why we should leave the EU despite that really the waste only costs each citizen of the EU 30p per year (an average figure), which is tiny overall. At the same time the same warnings that were present at the time of the referendum were casually ignored as fearmongering.
It's incredible to think that one of the wealthiest nations on the Earth is seriously having to consider stock piling food and potential rationing and that none of the ardent Wrexiters are at all worried about the situation and normalising it. You've got to the point where those far right nut cases in the
Government and Parliament think this is perfectly OK as long as it achieves what they want.
Now suppose we have another summer like we have had this year (or alternatively floods) that start damaging our own crops and the situation gets even worse.
Graphite wrote: Sorry, sorry, all this talk of how the EU could be better is very interesting but then the phase "adequate food" drifts across my train of thought and suddenly it doesn't seem all that important.
Don't forget the water 3-4 crates is probably ok for an emergency.
WHO guidance is 20 litres per day for drinking and hygiene. You could probably get some tablets as an easier way to manage. Assuming this dry spell doesn't continue with enough water butts etc we should be able to generate enough grey water to keep us healthy. Fortunately we aren't talking about an irradiated wasteland (yet).
A camping stove would also be a good idea considering the whole energy situation.
Charcoal or wood burning one would be best. Gas supplies are likely to be the energy source that dries up first as it is the hardest to extract. We should still have some energy supplies as there is the north sea supply which should at least keep critical infrastructure going. Buying into solar panels and larger lithium batteries may not be such a bad idea. Also we should remember we need supplies for heating. If we have a very cold spring then lack of heating can be just as deadly. Coal is still plentiful and relatively near the surface in many places in the UK.
A wind up radio might be a better idea. If energy is capped then the ability to charge such things might be restricted. On the other hand it gives plenty of opportunity to learn WFB!
You will likely want a weapon of some sort as well given that guns are heavily restricted melee is most likely were it will be.
Ranged weapons will still be king though. Those that have them will have a huge advantage. Although guns are going to be relatively infrequent (though this isn't a global issue) so smuggling them in might be big business. However you can get tournament bows and arrows. They do pack a punch, although they need practice to get right.
the government won't release the one code named Armaggedon.
That would be a general election and Labour get voted in?
Graphite wrote: Sorry, sorry, all this talk of how the EU could be better is very interesting but then the phase "adequate food" drifts across my train of thought and suddenly it doesn't seem all that important.
Interesting Twitter thread. I never knew the WTO setup was so complicated. Of course we were shielded from that by our EU membership.
I was suprised by the bias against the BBC's reporting on Brexit matters. To me they have been fairly obviously anti-Brexit in terms of clearly reporting stuff that makes Brexit look like a bad deal.
Maybe that's only because there is nothing to report that makes Brexit look like a good deal.
It's not just the straight reporting, though, it's the Reality Check articles which give a lot of useful explanation behind what triggers headlines.
Graphite wrote: Sorry, sorry, all this talk of how the EU could be better is very interesting but then the phase "adequate food" drifts across my train of thought and suddenly it doesn't seem all that important.
Spoiler:
perfectly fine and normal behaviour.
Food shortages and stockpiling human body parts. I think I can see the connection...think someone in government has been playing too much Fallout 4 to get an idea of how to survive.
I wonder if we could get enough crowd funding to run this on national TV for three months at the prime time?
A rather cynical tradition has developed in recent years in which, in the final days and hours before MPs leave Parliament for an extended break, the government releases a deluge of embarrassing reports, statistics, and statements in an apparently deliberate attempt to bury them.
This summer has been no different. Here are just some of the inconvenient stories Theresa May's government has tried to bury over the past 24 hours.
Theresa May promised that all EU law and the jurisdiction of EU courts would end after Brexit day. However, May's government on Tuesday slipped out a new white paper revealing that ministers will legislate to ensure EU law continues to apply for at least two years after Britain leaves in March 2019. As Brexiteer MPs head off to their constituencies, the new Brexit secretary Dominic Raab revealed that the government will implement legislation that will allow the European Communities Act, which ministers plan to repeal on Brexit day, to be extended to allow EU rules to remain in force during any two-year transition. This means European courts will also continue to have jurisdiction over the UK in a breach of previous promised by the prime minister.
This is a victory for those hoping to delay or cancel Brexit but will undoubtedly prompt anger among many Brexiteers.
May's government has repeatedly committed to protecting the British military from cuts. However, an announcement slipped out on Tuesday afternoon reveals that two RAF bases will now close their gates for the final time under a series of planned cuts by the government. RAF Linton-on-Ouse in North Yorkshire, which is used as a training ground for pilots, will cease to be operational from 2020. Meanwhile RAF Scampton, in Lincolnshire, which is home to the RAF Aerobatics Team, will also be sold off by 2022. The cuts are part of a wider long-term cuts plan to sell off military sites used by the RAF and armed forces.
The prime minister has repeatedly promised to tackle childhood obesity with measures including a new sugar tax and health advice brought in by ministers. However, a new government report slipped out as MPs leave Westminster for the summer, reveals that their attempts have so far failed. New figures published on Tuesday afternoon show that severe obesity among 10 and 11 year olds is now at a record high, with children in the poorest families showing the biggest rise. Overall the 'health inequality' gap between children in poorer and wealthier families has also widened once again.
David Davis's resignation as Brexit secretary led to speculation that Downing Street could move to take over Brexit talks from whoever succeeded him. That speculation turned out to be correct with the prime minister quietly announcing on Tuesday afternoon that the Brexit department will no longer be in charge of negotiations, with Downing Street and the Cabinet Office leading instead.
"I will lead the negotiations with the European Union, with the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union deputising on my behalf," May said in a statement.
The decision means the Brexit department will now be downgraded with staff moving over to Downing Street and the Cabinet office.
"Both of us will be supported by the Cabinet Office Europe Unit and with this in mind the Europe Unit will have overall responsibility for the preparation and conduct of the negotiations, drawing upon support from DExEU and other departments as required. A number of staff will transfer from DExEU to the Cabinet Office to deliver that."
The Conservative government's attempts to slash public spending has led to widespread cuts to public services. These cuts were today extended further into the courts system as May's government quietly announced plans to sell off courts across England as part of a wider cost-cutting exercise.
The following 7 courts will now be closed after government officials judged they no longer represented "value for money":
Banbury Magistrates’ and County Court
Blackfriars Crown Court
Chorley Magistrates’ Court
Fleetwood Magistrates’ Court
Maidenhead Magistrates’ Court
Northallerton Magistrates’ Court
Wandsworth County Court
When Margaret Thatcher cut free school milk in schools in the 1970's when she was Education Secretary, she was dubbed the "milk snatcher" by her opponents. Now as parliament prepares to head off for the summer, Theresa May's government is reportedly planning something similar for nursery school children. The plans to cut funding for free milk in nurseries were revealed by the Times on Tuesday and will be set out in an imminent public consultation.
A spokesperson for the prime minister insisted to Business Insider that no child who currently receives milk will lose access to it. However, there is likely to be cuts of some form to the programme, potentially in terms of the quality or quantity of milk provided.
makes you proud eh ?
likely to be cuts of some form to the programme, potentially in terms of the quality or quantity of milk provided.
TBF this at least shows the govt. is at last displaying some joined up thinking :
no point in giving milk to children if we're going to cause a dairy shortage through brexit
Wwhat's wrong with nato? Howabout it's led by one of the most aggressive countries that is not our friend, and whose president has indeed quoted aus as their enemies. We can't rely on it's help. We are lucky to avoid their invasion by made up charges like they like to do!
NATO has been the thing that likely done more to avert war in Europe than anything else.
It also allowed most if not all European nations to keep reducing their military spend and rely on the USA picking up the slack - I can see why this has been a frustration for many of their Presidents.
Our military is being scaled back with perhaps too much spent on Nuclear (to keep our seat on the SC) France has always been involved in a similar way to our membership of the EU - suspicious and somewhat reluctant. Germany is (understandably) terrified as being seen as a military power and most of the rest have declining at best militaries.
Even if NATO failed and the EU somehow cobbled together a "EU Defence Force" are the nations likely to spend any more? Its about as likely to work as a UN Defence Force.
Nato is paper that doesn't even quarantee help. And led by country that provenly is attacking countries with trumped up charges. Who's next? Us is huge world threat. Not something to rely on
When you get down to the bottom line, I support it out of sheer selfish geo-political reasons, because any attack on Ireland, or France, or Belgium etc etc
would be the same as an attack on Britain, due to the close proximity of those nations.
My problem is the EU. I don't want to see such a force wielded for pure political reasons.
I don't want another Ukraine debacle on our hands.
It should be strictly defensive in nature, and it would have to be done properly with clearly defined protocols about who is in charge.
I'm not saying the EU couldn't have some say and input, but some members would be EU members, and some members would be non-EU members. Just like NATO.
For the record, I've always though that even if the USA does pull out of Europe, then Britain, France, and Germany, have more than enough between them to handle Russia.
France and Britain have the nuclear deterrent to match Moscow, and Germany has the cash and industrial might to bolster British and French military capabilities with their own well equipped and well trained force.
It would be historically strange to be on the same side as Germany against Russia.
Kilkrazy wrote: "War is the continuation of policy by other means." (Clausewitz.)
A tacit admission that a United States of Europe is a possibility?
At any rate, something interesting is happening. Some Brexit kid is claiming that the EC unfairly fined him 20 grand for ticking the wrong box when declaring spending, and now he's crowdfunding to fight back against the EC.
Could be interesting.
reds8n will probably have the articles, charts, and graphs.
Tory (ex-UKIP) MEP suggests that the Treason Act should be brought up to date to include anybody with extreme loyalty to the EU acting "undemocratically" against the UK:
tneva82 wrote: Nato is paper that doesn't even quarantee help. And led by country that provenly is attacking countries with trumped up charges. Who's next? Us is huge world threat. Not something to rely on
Its a military alliance that has been around and been effective for what 70 years?
The current president of the US is....lets be generous and say unpredictable but is he the huge world threat? Who has he actually invaded? Lets recall that the mess in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Yeman was there when he got there and likely to be there when he goes.
Unless he changes the US rules, he will be going after at most 2nd term whereas the leaders of China and Putin are likely there till they die.
For the record, I've always though that even if the USA does pull out of Europe, then Britain, France, and Germany, have more than enough between them to handle Russia.
France and Britain have the nuclear deterrent to match Moscow, and Germany has the cash and industrial might to bolster British and French military capabilities with their own well equipped and well trained force.
Not unless it went nuclear and then we would all loose - well mostly us. NATO was strong enough with the US forces in Europe to make it untenable to invade (even if it wanted to), but if the Eastern Bloc really wanted to it could overwhelm the Western forces back when they had the higher spending and readiness. It would have gone nuclear if we wanted to not loose.
We and the French have a few missiles each- would we really use them? - this still seems relevant..... Without US forces - its unlikely we could put up more than a token resistance.
Kilkrazy wrote: "War is the continuation of policy by other means." (Clausewitz.)
A tacit admission that a United States of Europe is a possibility?
What, by someone dead for nearly 200 years? What foresight!
At any rate, something interesting is happening. Some Brexit kid is claiming that the EC unfairly fined him 20 grand for ticking the wrong box when declaring spending, and now he's crowdfunding to fight back against the EC.
Could be interesting.
That would be the guy who got caught undermining democracy as part of the great Brexit con job colluding with Vote Leave to breach spending limits and who now accuses the electoral commission of undermining democracy?
This is all the future is going to be, isn't it. Every issue just divides the populace into two highly polarised hyper-partisan groups who just appeal to their own baying mobs to shout down any sort of legal rulings, independently arbitrated or not. You can just denounce any finding as part of "the establishment", or "the conspiracy", or "the elites" or whatever and hope that the crowd you've whipped up has the critical mass to do something about it.
Is there a way back from this that doesn't involve some sort of catastrophic event?
We and the French have a few missiles each- would we really use them? - this still seems relevant..... Without US forces - its unlikely we could put up more than a token resistance.
The money is there. It's just a matter of spending smart.
UK, France and Germany alone currently outspend Russia by more than 2-1, add all the others and it's something like 5 to 1.
Kilkrazy wrote: "War is the continuation of policy by other means." (Clausewitz.)
A tacit admission that a United States of Europe is a possibility?
At any rate, something interesting is happening. Some Brexit kid is claiming that the EC unfairly fined him 20 grand for ticking the wrong box when declaring spending, and now he's crowdfunding to fight back against the EC.
Could be interesting.
reds8n will probably have the articles, charts, and graphs.
I don't know much about it myself to be honest.
It is to refute your objection to an EU army on the basis it might be used politically.
Why we need a people’s referendum on whatever deal is finally hashed out.
By Mad Doc Grotsnik, aged 38 and a bit.
The core of the problem lies in Leave never actually believing they’d win it.
This lead to what I like to call ‘The Lib Dem Effect’. Essentially, never believing they had even a glimmer of a chance, it just didn’t matter what they promised or said, because the theory went they’d never ever have to actually deliver it.
Yet many of those promises hit home. The now infamous Bus Of Lies. Vague entreaties about ‘Sovereignty’, without explaining exactly what they meant. Outright fibs about how much the EU foists upon us.
Post-Brexit Britain was said to be a paradise. More jobs, less foreigners (especially, bizarrely, less non-white migrants, even though that’s nothing to do with Europe). Better wages. Countries queueing up to give us the best deals.
This married into an electorate partially wanting to give the establshment a scare and a slightly bloody nose.
I genuinely don’t believe the majority of people who voted Leave were in the ‘at any cost’ Camp. A fair number were protest votes. And in the end, only around 2/3rds of eligible voters had their say,
But now? It’s coming down to the crunch. The lies peddled by Leave to one side, we’re starting to see just what impact Brexit might have,
Jacob Rees-Mogg - oh it’ll be 50 years before we see a benefit.
Nigel Farage - I never said we’d be better off out.
Johnson - GOSH! Crikey! I just wanted to be leader. RUN AWAY!
Gove - various slug like noises in an oddly Weasely fashion
And those impacts are eye opening. Whilst there was exaggeration (the war one is still face palm worthy), ‘Project Fear’ wasn’t at all far off the mark.
We’re seeing jitters in business. We’re seeing farmers struggling to get fruit pickers already, and we’ve not even left.
The core problem of course is the referendum was too binary. Both sides predicted the wrong outcome, and thus chose the wrong battle lines. In or Out, with no definition or explanation of what Out would look like. Indeed, even Herr Farage said ‘nobody is meaning we leave the Single Market’....more than once.
And as the impacts begin to crystallise and manifest properly, we simply cannot leave the final say to Parliament. There’s too many fingers in too many pies in that small group. And no one party wields sufficient power to quell its more dissenting members (though why the Tories are so beholden to their more swivel eyed parliamentarians, I don’t know.)
And it’s us that will have to carry the can. Those pushing for Wrexit will remain very well off.
The original referendum was a Tory Civl War gotten well out of hand. It was Cameron’s ‘put up or shut up’, a tactic that did actually work for John Major.
We cannot let the future of this country be solely determined by a handful of parliamentarians.
Once the final deal is thrashed out, it must go back to the people. As a die hard Remain voter, I’ll feel a helluva lot better if Leave wins again when people are more aware of just what it is they’re voting for. Sure, it’ll suck that I’m still getting caught up in it. But as it stands, a vote sold on lies, pipe dreams and obfuscation is not something for us to slavishly follow.
Ranged weapons will still be king though. Those that have them will have a huge advantage. Although guns are going to be relatively infrequent (though this isn't a global issue) so smuggling them in might be big business. However you can get tournament bows and arrows. They do pack a punch, although they need practice to get right.
Crossbows would be easier but can be quite expensive, if you are so inclined.
The best policy would be to befriend your neighbours and organise. That way you can share resources, work defence etc.
the last thing you want is to try and defend your flimsy 6 foot wooden fence against a off neighbour.
Remember we are the number 1 animal due to team work.
Herzlos wrote: In terms of EU reform; I'd like to see an end to the 2nd parliament. Potentially re-instate it as some form of 2nd chamber, but at least axe the expense of moving everything.
I'd put something in place to prevent MEP's taking a salary/pension but never turning up - some form of minimum attendance or valid justification.
The problem with the second parliament is that in order to remove it you'll have to remove france's veto. The only way to do that is to remove all vetos.
It's like you brexiters think you're pointing out a brilliant but unseen problem we have all missed but your not!
All the other countrys know its a waste and have voted against it several times but france just goes non slaps down veto.
That's why I think it might be an easier sell to re purpose it as a 2nd chamber. If we need to keep it running we may as well use it for something and skip this moving back and forward farce.
But in reality it doesn't cost that much and I'd rather have it than Brexit.
I would rather have me teeth pulled with no anaesthetic than the no deal brexit it looks like we are getting.
I could get behind an EFTA deal if they could fix the ireland border I.E. a transition period until we have a credible, workable plan
a second parliament would make sense it would save money, and could be seen as an olive branch to anti EU elements.
The problem i see with it ( and why i suggested it) is that they just will not be happy with it, we've seen what they can do now
I never thought even 5 years ago that they could get a majority (UKIP got 20% during the 2015 election, i thought maybe 30% max)
we need to give them an ultimatum: the EU is wasteful or the EU lets countrys have a certain amount of sovereignty.
I think another problem of the EU is that it's too easy to use as a punching bag. Something goes wrong "it's the EUs fault".
I was thinking a media company, or buy shares/put programs on every countrys news channel, or they get really itchy with the i'll sue you button.
I have lost count of the number of shear myths i have had to dispell over the last couple of years.
Kilkrazy wrote:The Independent has started a petition to have a second referendum.
I mean yeah, really comforting that we are taking a wealthy nation to the point where we may have to restrict supplies of food to the populace. Very comforting...to know that you might not be able to get the food you want when you need it through self inflicted idiocy.
I mean yeah, really comforting that we are taking a wealthy nation to the point where we may have to restrict supplies of food to the populace. Very comforting...to know that you might not be able to get the food you want when you need it through self inflicted idiocy.
Too bad it's so late in the year - instead of a Victory garden you could have "Brexit" gardens.
I mean yeah, really comforting that we are taking a wealthy nation to the point where we may have to restrict supplies of food to the populace. Very comforting...to know that you might not be able to get the food you want when you need it through self inflicted idiocy.
It sounds a bit like this to me:
Health experts: Ebola is coming to the UK Govenment: It’s fine. We have plenty of body bags!
This whole Brexit mess is getting worse than “project fear” even thought. This is just insane and destroying our country for a political ideology. I feel sorry for those who genuinely believed we would be better off outside the EU. They fell for the lies of a hoes who wanted it for ideological reasons.
Honestly, as an outsider, I am just glad they are discussing this and planning for this. The previous answers to "how are you going to deal with short term disruptions to food supply" were total fantasy. Stockpiling food is sensible - the UK is not able to feed itself independently, hasn't been able to for over a hundred years, it absolutely needs food imports to survive. That is not a problem you can fix by growing a few extra turnips. You are lacking in the infrastructure and trained personnel to become food independent and there is a significant lead time anyway, in the order of years.
If you want to get food from other sources, that is a long-medium term solution, but it will take a couple of weeks to set up. Even just keeping the current trading going but more expensive, would, in the case of a "no deal", result in delays of maybe 5 days as the customs chaos played out.
At the very least you are talking about a drop in the availability of fresh food anyway, and food is likely to get dramatically more expensive. Given how many already rely on food banks in the UK and the likely fall in the pound in the case of a hard brexit, you can see the situation spiraling rapidly. So stockpiles of food are a sensible and needed precaution, and a sign of the UK becoming more serious about Brexit. Unfortunately, over 2 years too late.
Da Boss wrote: Honestly, as an outsider, I am just glad they are discussing this and planning for this. The previous answers to "how are you going to deal with short term disruptions to food supply" were total fantasy. Stockpiling food is sensible - the UK is not able to feed itself independently, hasn't been able to for over a hundred years, it absolutely needs food imports to survive. That is not a problem you can fix by growing a few extra turnips. You are lacking in the infrastructure and trained personnel to become food independent and there is a significant lead time anyway, in the order of years.
If you want to get food from other sources, that is a long-medium term solution, but it will take a couple of weeks to set up. Even just keeping the current trading going but more expensive, would, in the case of a "no deal", result in delays of maybe 5 days as the customs chaos played out.
At the very least you are talking about a drop in the availability of fresh food anyway, and food is likely to get dramatically more expensive. Given how many already rely on food banks in the UK and the likely fall in the pound in the case of a hard brexit, you can see the situation spiraling rapidly. So stockpiles of food are a sensible and needed precaution, and a sign of the UK becoming more serious about Brexit. Unfortunately, over 2 years too late.
Too bad they are unlikely able to stockpile years worth so it's short term relied anyway. Then it runs out
That is true, but the serious disruption (I mean food not reaching shops) is likely to only at maximum last in the order of weeks. I think they could allieviate the worst of that. It would not be pleasant but it could prevent serious unrest.
I am just glad they are waking up to the fact that this disruption can happen - up to now it seemed like they were pretending they could just seamlessly switch to getting food from Africa or South America with no disruption, which was really dumb. Hearing supposedly educated people spouting that kind of nonsense really drives home why you need people who have technical know-how in decision making positions.
I think with preparation they can make the disruption unpleasant rather than catastrophic. The bigger problem is that without CU\SM membership, food will get more expensive if they buy it from Europe or will be of uncertain quality if they get it from elsewhere. In the medium term, they will have to buy quite a lot of it still from the EU, and that will mean rising food prices. The pound collapsing will make that even more of an issue. So even if food is available, the government may need to subsidise it to ensure people can afford it until a cheaper supply can be set up, which will take a fair bit of time.
The UK could also build up it's agricultural sector, but that also takes time and investment. The UK does not really have a strong culture of agri-food any more, being predominantly an urban nation of service industries at this point.
I am glad this stuff is being discussed. No Deal is insanity and the more it is discussed in public the more people will realise. I think up to now the average punter has not considered these issues carefully, but hearing about something like food stockpiling will scare them. I am pretty sure that is why May is doing it, to soften up the population so they accept comromises. Again, the problem is, she should have done that a year or more ago. Or even had this conversation during the referendum.
Da Boss wrote: That is true, but the serious disruption (I mean food not reaching shops) is likely to only at maximum last in the order of weeks. I think they could allieviate the worst of that. It would not be pleasant but it could prevent serious unrest.
I am just glad they are waking up to the fact that this disruption can happen - up to now it seemed like they were pretending they could just seamlessly switch to getting food from Africa or South America with no disruption, which was really dumb. Hearing supposedly educated people spouting that kind of nonsense really drives home why you need people who have technical know-how in decision making positions.
This does require May to soften substantially her red lines - in that we stay in the customs union. She hasn't given herself much leeway in saying we aren't moving much from these terms in the white paper and expect to survive as PM.
What really is shocking that we have to even plan for this. This is a real tangible risk now. Not fanatics preaching on a street corner. I can undertand the need for plans for emergency measures in case of an asteroid impact etc. However this is planned problems. If you even have to consider that your approach is in effect to apply processes that are usually reserved for natural disasters or war time then a government really should take a step back and look at what it is doing because you hardly want to put the country you are leading into such a situation that is equivalent.
Effectively you are saying a hard Wrexit will be a natural disaster.
Donald Trump’s former chief adviser Steve Bannon has been in direct communication with former UK foreign secretary Boris Johnson, as both men plot new moves that could have a significant impact on European politics, multiple sources told BuzzFeed News.
During a visit to London this month, which overlapped with Trump’s working visit to the UK, Bannon spoke glowingly of Johnson in several interviews and urged him to challenge Prime Minister Theresa May for the leadership of the Conservative Party.
A source who spent time with Bannon during the trip said Bannon was in private contact with Johnson while he was in Britain.
It is unclear exactly what the two men discussed, but the source said, “I’m sure they weren’t discussing the cricket scores.”
A former UK government source told BuzzFeed News that Bannon and Johnson have known each other for some time, and exchanged text messages as far back as when Johnson was foreign secretary and Bannon worked in the White House.
When contacted, Bannon would not comment on the record.
Asked to comment on whether Johnson has been seeking advice and guidance from Bannon, or whether Bannon had been encouraging him to launch a campaign for a hard Brexit or challenge May, Johnson’s spokesperson declined to comment.
News of the two men being in direct contact so recently will surprise people in the UK, and it suggests that Bannon’s relationships are deepening with senior politicians in the ruling Conservative Party. Bannon has previously met Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, who leads an influential caucus of Conservative MPs who want a hard break from the European Union.
The revelation of the recent communications between Johnson and Bannon indicates that there’s more to the relationship between one of the UK’s most well-known politicians and the former senior Trump adviser than has previously been reported.
Johnson resigned from May’s cabinet this month in protest of the prime minister’s new approach to Brexit, which many euroskeptics believe will keep the UK too closely aligned with the EU after it leaves the union.
In the last few weeks since leaving government, Johnson has been relatively quiet. UK political insiders are watching closely to see what he does next, with some speculating that he will begin aggressively campaigning to pressure the government to change its Brexit policy — and perhaps try to topple May as prime minister.
Bannon, who left his role in the White House in August 2017, is eyeing Europe as a new political battleground. He is planning to start a new organization, based in Brussels, to help far-right parties seize control of the parliament of the European Union.
An alliance with Johnson — the most prominent campaigner for Brexit, and a genuine contender to be the UK’s next prime minister — would make Bannon a player in one of Europe’s main political dramas. In interviews in London this month, Bannon appeared to encourage Johnson to challenge May, making reference to May’s softer plan for Brexit that led to Johnson’s resignation.
“Now is the moment,” Bannon told the Daily Telegraph. “If Boris Johnson looks at this... There comes an inflection point. The Chequers deal was an inflection point. We will have to see what happens.”
On the radio station LBC, Bannon said he’d always been “very impressed” with Johnson, adding: “If you look at Boris’s resignation letter and if you look at him and his writing, if you look at his book on Churchill.
“He is a student of Churchill.”
However, an association with Bannon could damage Johnson’s standing with mainstream British voters, who would regard Bannon’s firebrand populist rhetoric as too right-wing.
Bannon’s closest political relationship in the UK has historically been with Nigel Farage and UKIP, the right-wing party which campaigned to leave the EU and for tight immigration controls.
is because it has been awarded a new contract by the Government. Perhaps these discount stores will not be about price but discounting how much you can buy! After all the government has to distribute the food it stockpiles somehow (unless it is keeping it all for itself).
Da Boss wrote: That is true, but the serious disruption (I mean food not reaching shops) is likely to only at maximum last in the order of weeks. I think they could allieviate the worst of that. It would not be pleasant but it could prevent serious unrest.
I am just glad they are waking up to the fact that this disruption can happen - up to now it seemed like they were pretending they could just seamlessly switch to getting food from Africa or South America with no disruption, which was really dumb. Hearing supposedly educated people spouting that kind of nonsense really drives home why you need people who have technical know-how in decision making positions.
This does require May to soften substantially her red lines - in that we stay in the customs union. She hasn't given herself much leeway in saying we aren't moving much from these terms in the white paper and expect to survive as PM.
What really is shocking that we have to even plan for this. This is a real tangible risk now. Not fanatics preaching on a street corner. I can undertand the need for plans for emergency measures in case of an asteroid impact etc. However this is planned problems. If you even have to consider that your approach is in effect to apply processes that are usually reserved for natural disasters or war time then a government really should take a step back and look at what it is doing because you hardly want to put the country you are leading into such a situation that is equivalent.
Effectively you are saying a hard Wrexit will be a natural disaster.
With there strategy up to now being kick the can down the road, and put forward ideas that will not work and will be rejected as soon as the EU looked at it,
i think this was there plan all along. The stockpiles are going to last weeks, even if we pay more for our food (from the EU) or get it from other sources
we are still going to have the big problem of our borders not being capable of checking all the freight, I mean is there plan- let's just not check most of it, It'll be ok.
To me this adds up. They want to lose power for now (why they are blaming the EU, why may has taken over negotiations, so she can be kicked out and the others can say it wasn't us,
why they are stockpiling, so the country can survive for the first few weeks until parliament kicks them out, prob. with the help of pro brexit tory mps.)
I also believe that may explain this new pay rise for some public sector workers,despite not getting any extra money from the treasury or why a few months back they started spreading
rhetoric about that made political pundits think we were having another election. They were making a legacy.
but they don't want to lose power forever, aload of deaths on there hands wouldn't be very good, and dropping corbyn in a damned if you do (stay out and desperately try to make it work
with the poor preparations the torys have put in place) damned if you don't (rejoin the EU, probably with less powers and no rebate) would be an absolute dream for them.
"Can't we just remain in the EU and send big red buses round the country with 'we have left the EU' on the side?" Surely that would make everone happy."
Jazzpot1707 wrote: With there strategy up to now being kick the can down the road, and put forward ideas that will not work and will be rejected as soon as the EU looked at it,
i think this was there plan all along. The stockpiles are going to last weeks, even if we pay more for our food (from the EU) or get it from other sources
we are still going to have the big problem of our borders not being capable of checking all the freight, I mean is there plan- let's just not check most of it, It'll be ok.
To me this adds up. They want to lose power for now (why they are blaming the EU, why may has taken over negotiations, so she can be kicked out and the others can say it wasn't us,
why they are stockpiling, so the country can survive for the first few weeks until parliament kicks them out, prob. with the help of pro brexit tory mps.)
I also believe that may explain this new pay rise for some public sector workers,despite not getting any extra money from the treasury or why a few months back they started spreading
rhetoric about that made political pundits think we were having another election. They were making a legacy.
but they don't want to lose power forever, aload of deaths on there hands wouldn't be very good, and dropping corbyn in a damned if you do (stay out and desperately try to make it work
with the poor preparations the torys have put in place) damned if you don't (rejoin the EU, probably with less powers and no rebate) would be an absolute dream for them.
The main problem I see with this theory is that it would require a grasp of long term planning, unity and a degree of selflessness. All qualities that large swathes of the Conservative party have been shown not to possess.
The Home Secretary has turned back on its previous (very bad) decision not to oppose the death penalty for the "ISIL Beatles".
I hold no love for them as individuals, but I believe it is very important for the country to stick to its principles.
I agree, whilst I don't particularly care if these animals live or die, we shouldn't let the country's principles be dragged down by their actions. Our principles are in short supply and one of the only things we have left after 8 years of appallingly bad governance.
A terrible injustice. Execution is absolutely against British principles. Any decent country would have used a Goverment-Sponsored death squad to kill them in a street along with half a dozen people of their religion, then shoddily covered it up.
No deal is one of those really bad ideas, like shell suits or Celine Dion, which we thought we could leave in the past. But this summer it's somehow all the rage. It's discussed as if it were just another Brexit option.
It is not. No-deal is probably the most demented policy put forward by mainstream British politicians in the modern era. To see how it would work in practice, this piece looks at what would happen on day one. Doing this for the whole economy would take countless pages of Stephen-King-style horror, so it's stripped down to one topic: food. This is the story of how our system for importing and exporting food implodes almost instantly.
You may remember 'Brexit means Brexit' - that nursery rhyme from the bygone days of late 2016. It was false. But no-deal, on the other hand, really does mean no-deal. The withdrawal treaty comes as one package, so if Theresa May fails to secure it, everything falls down. There are no deals on anything.
March 30th 2019 becomes Year Zero. Overnight, British meat products cannot be imported into the EU. To bring these types of goods in, they have to come from a country with an approved national body whose facilities have been certified by the EU. But there has been no deal, so there's no approval.
This sounds insane. After all, British food was OK to enter Europe with minimal checks on March 29th, so why not on March 30? Nothing has changed.
The reason is that food is potentially very dangerous, so we have strict systems in place for it. Imagine that right now someone is eating a burger made from the meat of a cow with a neurodegenerative disease, like BSE. This is what happened in Britain in the late-80s and led to the deaths of 177 people. Tomorrow's tabloid front pages will ask certain very important questions. Where did the meat come from? Was it produced domestically or imported? Who was responsible for its production, transport and storage? The people responsible will be hauled in front of cameras and Commons select committees. Ministers will have to give statements to parliament. The press will demand that heads roll.
The BSE outbreak almost brought down the government. That's how severe these threats are. And there are plenty more around, including foot and mouth, avian flu, and African swine fever, plus those that do not exist yet.
This is why the certification system for food coming into Europe is so stringent and detailed. After Brexit, we will fall out of the eco-system of EU rules, agencies and courts and become an external country. That means certification requirements will apply to us too.
Certificates are approval stamps, designed per product and country, documenting the fact that it meets the various standards for human health and animal welfare. Say a container full of pork loins is sent from Leeds to Amsterdam after Brexit day. It will need to be signed off by a vet to say that the meat was slaughtered, stored, quality assured, sealed and despatched in a certain manner, with appropriate documentation proving compliance.
This will be a cold splash of water to the face for Britain. We've grown so used to frictionless EU trade that our food system is based on something called Just In Time. The idea behind this is that products are constantly cycling from producers to consumers, without being stored in big cargo holds. It's more efficient and also more pleasant. This is why you eat fresh tomatoes from countries miles away without ever really having to think about how extraordinary it is. Under your feet, a miraculous logistical system is constantly pumping ham and cheese and fruit and veg and bread around the continent. It's a circulatory system of yummy wonderfulness.
The UK is particularly reliant on Just in Time because it doesn't feed itself. Domestic food production has been steadily declining from the early 1980s and is now at just 60%. Most of our imports come from the EU because it is closest to us. With food more than arguably any other good, distance is important, because it'll go off. About 10,000 containers of food come into the UK from the EU daily. (This is an excellent recent report on Britain's food security and its vulnerabilities.)
But the efficiency makes it fragile. The impact of no-deal Brexit on this system would be an implosion in the trade network. Suddenly, the full certification system would need to be checked at the border. Frictionless trade would be replaced by standard-issue bureaucracy.
This is where the crunch point will be. The main ports affected will be the ones at Dover, Calais, the Eurotunnel, Dunkirk, and Holyhead, for trade to and from Ireland.
Products of animal origin from non-EU states must pass through special border inspection posts, manned by a vet. Calais and the Eurotunnel are not equipped for this. Dunkirk is, but it has a very low capacity.
We have a very significant infrastructure problem here. We don't have enough inspection posts, we don't have the staff to man them, we don't have the means to divert product to them and we don't have the cold storage capacity to handle product going in and out. Many ports don't have space to install more facilities.
Inspections take time. Where a product must be detained and a sample taken off for testing, the process can last around 36 hours.
It is fatal. A study by an expert on traffic modelling from Imperial College London earlier this year found that if the current average paperwork clearance of two minutes at Dover was increased to just four, there would be a 20-mile tailback within 24 hours on the UK side. This would balloon as the days wore on.
It doesn't really matter which side the tailbacks start on - European or British. One side affects the other because there is limited space for goods to move. Some experts predict a total breakdown of the Just In Time system by day five. That's where the horror stories you read about stockpiling come from. Very quickly, we'd see empty supermarket shelves.
At this point, Downing Street could decide to unilaterally give up all these tests and procedures for goods coming into the UK. After all, it is now unbound from EU law. It can do what it likes.
There is some evidence that this is what ministers are planning. In February, Defra minister George Eustice told a Lords committee his department would implement a 'mutual recognition' regime, which ultimately amounts to assuming food from the EU was safe to eat and hoping they did the same. Transport secretary Chris Grayling told the BBC categorically in March that "we will not impose checks" at the port of Dover.
But this approach would have profound consequences. Overnight, there would be no protections whatsoever for UK consumers on the food they eat.
This would be a betrayal of ministers' assurances of high food standards after Brexit, but put aside the morality and think about the practicality. Opening the border in this way would provide an open invitation for fraudsters. They could send anything to the UK they like - any food product, any drink, with any ingredient - knowing there would be no checks. The spot check system operating under EU law would vanish. There would be no documentation, no safeguards, no court oversight, and no supervision.
The UK would be instantly downgraded to pariah status by the EU and the rest of our trading partners. British food exports would shrivel up.
The other solution would be to turn away from the continent and start importing our food from across the Atlantic.
The problem with this idea is the existence of geography. The EU is not our main food supplier because of some metropolitan conspiracy by people who like brie. It's our main food supplier because it is close to us. The US, regardless of its 'Anglophone' cultural credentials, is further away. US exports to the UK are proportionately tiny. They are ranked 10th, behind a host of European countries. For America to replace this volume of trade flow in nine months is simply not realistic. No-one with any understanding of the industry thinks it is possible.
But ministers like Liam Fox will likely demand this anyway - not because it makes sense, but because it provides them with a historic and irreversible opportunity to break Britain away from the continent and towards the US.
This is because of something called 'sanitary and phytosanitary standards'. These are global measures to protect people, animals and the environment from diseases. The EU has one approach to these and the US has another.
Years ago Nasa developed something called Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP). It was an extremely systematic approach to guaranteeing quality control on foods, primarily for the reason that it is very, very problematic if an astronaut gets diarrhoea. The EU adopted this very high standard in 2006.
The US, on the other hand, has much lower standards. The EU rejects US standards on the levels of pesticides residue in fruit, for instance, hormone injections in beef and chlorine wash in poultry. It has strict and very welcome requirements on the excess and routine use of antimicrobials in agriculture. Anyone who has had their life saved by antibiotics awill recognise why this is sensible long-term rule-making.
Brexiters pretend post-Brexit Britain UK will forge its own standards in trade, but that is false. We're a medium-sized country surrounded on both sides by massive trading entities. The reality is we'll either snuggle into the EU ecosystem or the US ecosystem - it's as simple as that. On food, this is basically about which set of sanitary and phytosanitary standards we adopt.
If Brexiters can force a situation - especially in the chaotic furnace of no-deal - where the UK starts de-facto accepting US standards by having to bring in lots of their food, it makes it harder for us to align with the EU again in the future. It's a fait accompli, except that Fox would consider that phrase unforgivably continental. Maybe he'd prefer Mission Accomplished.
As the days and weeks wore on after a no-deal Brexit, British agriculture would be pulverised.
Tariffs are exorbitantly high for food products. Under a deal, they'd be kept at zero, but without one they'll average 22%. This would devastate UK agricultural exports, whose main market is Europe.
Britain could decide to unilaterally bring these tariffs down to zero. But you can't discriminate between countries under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, so it would then have to do this for the rest of the world as well. That would bring in a flood of cheaper agricultural products from countries with lower standards and protections.
Food prices would come down for some consumers. This would force domestic British agriculture consumption into a death spiral. They'd be blocked from exporting to their largest foreign market and suddenly faced with impossible competition at home.
Alternately, the UK could try to move past the immediate chaos of no-deal, pull itself together, and level-up capacity so it could get the certification system demanded by the EU up and running. But here it runs into another problem, which feels disturbingly like the twist at the end of a morality tale: there aren’t enough vets, because they're all from the EU.
British vets like setting up small clinics in a village somewhere and saving the family dog. Admit it. That's the image in your head when someone says the word 'vet'. They do not envision spending their career watching cow carcasses being washed down in an abattoir. The culture of veterinary checks in food is much more common in Europe, especially in Spain. EU citizens consequently make up 95% of the veterinary workforce in UK food production.
If Britain is going to suddenly have to do all these checks to export food to the EU, it will require a massive increase in these types of vets. But at the moment we can't even keep the ones we've got. European workers are leaving, sick of the lack of security about their status and a national conversation which only ever treats them as a problem. We lose about 20 EU vets a month from the sector.
Without a deal on Brexit, it becomes hard to fill that gap, because new EU workers would find it harder to come to the UK. This hinges on something called 'mutual recognition of professional qualifications'. If there's a deal, the qualification you have in Europe entitles you to work in the UK and vice versa. If there isn't, all that falls down.
This is the scale of the catastrophe no-deal entails. And this is just one area. It does not cover what would happen to services, or industrial goods, or the fact planes would be grounded, or energy, or any other part of the economy. This is just one sliver of the chaos which would hit the UK. There are simply no precedents for this scenario.
It remains, even now, unlikely that it could happen. No advanced country has committed hara-kiri like this. The weeks leading up to no-deal would likely see a form of market panic. Once investors decided it was really going to happen - say late January or mid-February - they would act accordingly.
That would sharpen minds in London and Brussels. Some kind of emergency provision would probably be passed. This would not be a deal. It would be a sticking plaster saying existing UK-EU arrangements on trade are carried over past Brexit Day for a limited period.
This would prevent catastrophe, but not for long. It would probably be a matter of weeks.
So even in this best-case no-deal scenario, things would be very intense. Britain would have to make crucial decisions about its future very quickly. That core issue in the Brexit debate - do we pick the EU ecosystem or the US one - would suddenly have to be dealt with. It would be a decision made to a razor-sharp timetable, amid scenes of extraordinary political chaos, with consequences that would define the economic future of the country.
We'd be fiddling, while drunk and hysterical, with the levers of the country's engine room. And we would make mistakes: long-term, core-function errors under impossibly volatile conditions.
No matter how soothingly they suggest it, this is not something any rational person would want. The fact we are even talking about it suggests there is something deeply wrong with us.
This piece is based on conversations with…
Jason Aldiss, managing director of Eville & Jones, a leading provider of official veterinary controls, and former president of the Veterinary Public Health Association.
Tim Lang, professor of food policy at City University London
Tony Lewis, head of policy at the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health
Sam Lowe, senior research fellow at the Centre for European Reform and visiting research fellow at the King's University Policy Unit
...and several others in London and Brussels who chose not to be named.
Da krimson barun wrote: A terrible injustice. Execution is absolutely against British principles. Any decent country would have used a Goverment-Sponsored death squad to kill them in a street along with half a dozen people of their religion, then shoddily covered it up.
You want to be careful chucking douchebag inflammotory comments like that in. You are in effect saying that the British cannot take a principled stance now or ever on anything because previous generations acted like gaks?
There was plenty of evil committed by all sides in Ireland, don't try and chuck stuff in like this to feel better on your high horse, because republicans are as deep in the moral gak as the rest of us. It does feth all except alienate support for your argument from those of us on the other side.
Hey! Y'know the whole thing about "Thousands of ships a day arriving on Hive Worlds to feed the populace" and you wonder "what happens if the place is cut off by a warp storm?
Next time my wife chides me for being too fat I'll tell her it's part of my Brexit survival plan.
After a couple of weeks of starvation, I will have slimmed down to a good fighting weight while all the skinnies will have wasted away and made easy prey.
Kilkrazy wrote: Next time my wife chides me for being too fat I'll tell her it's part of my Brexit survival plan.
After a couple of weeks of starvation, I will have slimmed down to a good fighting weight while all the skinnies will have wasted away and made easy prey.
Sensible IMO, given NATO implications, intelligence sharing etc etc
Let's not re-hash old arguments on this, because we all know where we stand
but I actually accept the EU's stance on restricting the work to EU countries only. I have no problem with that, seeing as we are leaving.
And if there are EU projects that are beneficial to Britain, and the EU will let us in them, in return for hard cash, I have no problem with that, either.
The key difference being that the UK will be able to pick and choose which projects it wants to join.
Da krimson barun wrote: A terrible injustice. Execution is absolutely against British principles. Any decent country would have used a Goverment-Sponsored death squad to kill them in a street along with half a dozen people of their religion, then shoddily covered it up.
You want to be careful chucking douchebag inflammotory comments like that in. You are in effect saying that the British cannot take a principled stance now or ever on anything because previous generations acted like gaks?
There was plenty of evil committed by all sides in Ireland, don't try and chuck stuff in like this to feel better on your high horse, because republicans are as deep in the moral gak as the rest of us. It does feth all except alienate support for your argument from those of us on the other side.
Yes but I wouldn't declare execution of captured enemy combatants to be against Republican principles, considering how often it was done. I'm personally against it, but I'd never have the gall to act like our lot was against it. I'll consider it the crimes of a past generation when the archives are opened. Also not sure the children of Yemen would call it a past generation.
The Home Secretary has turned back on its previous (very bad) decision not to oppose the death penalty for the "ISIL Beatles".
I hold no love for them as individuals, but I believe it is very important for the country to stick to its principles.
There are many people who the world would be better off without and I would not shed any tears for those two. But if there is a chance that even one person could be wrongfully executed than its not worth the risk.
Door to door salespeople should be outlawed. I’m sorry, I just fell for one and I’m going crazy trying to undo it. How difficult that’s proving to be is very worrying. I’m looking at this and I’m imagining what more vulnerable people must go through. Easy targets.
The main problem I see with this theory is that it would require a grasp of long term planning, unity and a degree of selflessness. All qualities that large swathes of the Conservative party have been shown not to possess.
I thought this at first but in the end i came to the conclusion that it really didn't, it needs the top members yes but the rest fall in line.
Theresa may is just giving the brexiters what they want, make our own laws? well we must leave the ECJ. Make our own trade deals? we must leave the customs union ETC.
The big one for me was there rejection of EFTA right in the beginning. Vote leave said throughout the campaign that we would stay in the customs union, then all of a sudden oh no we must leave.
The other was the northern Ireland border, leave didn't even mention it, because they knew they couldn't solve it.
could our government? no. but they spent most of the negotiation time trying to find a way to do the Sweden-Norway border better then they do!!
Hell take vote leave they didn't have a plan at all!!, or did they? we don't know but they had thousands working for them, do you think any of them would have asked "do we have a plan"?
Of course they did but they would have been told it's above your pay grade, we can't let it leak etc.
They believed what they were told without any evidence (just look at the £350 million for the NHS)
In the end all it needed was for the remainers to believe this wouldn't happen (we are all guilty of this. I don't think anyone thought they were crazy enough to even get a no deal by mistake)
and to be weak enough not to go against the "will of the people"
and the brexiters to continue doing what they did during the referendum I.E. not to question brexiter management, believe what they are told without much eveidence
and to treat the EU as an enemy.
The last piece of the stone? the torys putting party before country, how many times have i read that on here?
Theresa mays negotiations not going well?
We''ll bring down the government Oh and make Corbyn prime-minister?
On second thought, I'll give her another chance.
All the while pretending to do the impossible
the remainers knew it was impossible so they accepted we were not getting anywhere.
the brexiters believed that we could get a deal no matter what anyone said and its the EUs fault for not coming to our level
which feeds into the were being punished narrative there strategy needed.
No one believed they would want or try to get no deal brexit and that left us all open. we fell into there trap as we believed that they would never go for this,
so when they smiled and said "no of course we don't want no deal brexit" we accepted it.
EDIT sorry my internet keeps dropping out
All it needs is a handful of people inside (may, davis) coming up with plans that wont work but are trying to appease. Outside (mogg) to do what everyone thinks he will,
fight for what he wants. Then add a few newspaper owners (4 owners own 3 major leave papers) to add legitimacy and spread disinformation.
The remainers will fight for what they want.
What does it all add up too??
CHAOS Who wins if chaos reigns? the backstop plan... which we all thought was EFTA
Oh wait no it isn't now.
Future War Cultist wrote:Door to door salespeople should be outlawed. I’m sorry, I just fell for one and I’m going crazy trying to undo it. How difficult that’s proving to be is very worrying. I’m looking at this and I’m imagining what more vulnerable people must go through. Easy targets.
Damn sorry to hear that, they got my grandmother on a pneumatic bed that was to high for her to get on!!
I feel for ya.
WOW
SO MANY LIES.
how many are click bait to learn everything about you?
HOW MANY TIMES WE DO NOT GIVE £350 MILLION NET TO THE EU!!! channel 4 says 45% were threats on immigration, so when are turkey joining the EU again?
ERRM... one more thing guys if the government aren't stockpiling food, and they haven't talked to supermarkets about it
[b]WHO IS STOCKPILING THE FOOD
I have changed my mind the torys are going to threaten the EU into giving us a good deal.
Give us a good deal or we'll leave and kill thousands of people!!!!!
That’s awful. It’s sickening when they target the elderly like that. Me though, I really should have known better. It was that Hello Fresh place who bring food to your door. I’m actually trying to save money on groceries so they got me good.
Future War Cultist wrote: That’s awful. It’s sickening when they target the elderly like that. Me though, I really should have known better. It was that Hello Fresh place who bring food to your door. I’m actually trying to save money on groceries so they got me good.
I see they tried me with that, I almost went for it but, well... i have eclectic taste more often then not i will stop by 1 of the 5 supermarkets or umpteen takeout places and pick something up
i got a craving for during the day.
They must have a cooling off period or something,Others on here are probably more clued up then me, I'm sure someone will find a way to cancel it.
Future War Cultist wrote: That’s awful. It’s sickening when they target the elderly like that. Me though, I really should have known better. It was that Hello Fresh place who bring food to your door. I’m actually trying to save money on groceries so they got me good.
And like that I ended up reading various pieces of both dutch and british law and (EU) directives regarding off-premises contracts and other consumer rights. Really quite interesting to read about, so thank you for helping me get through an otherwise dull evening!
Door to door sales are rather nasty regardless though. Hope you can get rid of it before they start actually shipping boxes of (usually perishable, if I recall correctly?) food to you!
Future War Cultist wrote: Door to door salespeople should be outlawed. I’m sorry, I just fell for one and I’m going crazy trying to undo it. How difficult that’s proving to be is very worrying. I’m looking at this and I’m imagining what more vulnerable people must go through. Easy targets.
Sorry to hear that. I hate pressurised sales tactics, wherever they are.
I mean, the whole. "Hello sir, I am from The Internet..." thing.
It's not like fraud isn't already illegal.
As for this sort of thing, I would have thought just calling up your bank and asking them to fix this please would have done it.
But then, I'm pretty naive about all this sort of thing myself (I got caught out by Eaglemoss and cancelling that, I just cancelled the paypal payment, when I needed to email them).
There's always consumer advice and the like, feel free to ask them for help.
Personally, in all honesty, me as someone who politically sites himself as center right genuinely does not understand why someone would not bank with a Building Society like Nationwide, or the Coop, or the like.
But really, again, as someone who is center right. Banks are there to screw you, their entire raison d'etre is finding the most economically efficient way to screw you just enough to stop you from going to the effort to leave them.
So, to tie it back, if your bank isn't helping you with this and stopping these payments, leave your bank.
Future War Cultist wrote: Door to door salespeople should be outlawed. I’m sorry, I just fell for one and I’m going crazy trying to undo it. How difficult that’s proving to be is very worrying. I’m looking at this and I’m imagining what more vulnerable people must go through. Easy targets.
I've found the best way to deal with anyone door-knocking is that I tell them I'm busy and ask them to leave a card or leaflet and if I'm interested I'll contact them, if they don't have anything like that on them that's a bit of a red- or at least yellow-flag straight away IMO. At this stage, contact your bank and make sure any direct debits don't happen then contact the firm's office (Not the sale's person) and tell them you've changed your mind. If nothing else if you've cancelled your payments, they'll probably cancel any orders anyway.
Future War Cultist wrote: I feel way too young to be taken in by that kind of tactic. What a dick I am.
To steer it towards politics, could it be banned?
Probably difficult to ban, I’d say the best route would be to introduce a compulsory 14-day cooling off period for door-to-door sales, same as for insurance and distance selling, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, it’s not about age, or any other personal factors really. They’re just really good at exploiting human behaviour. Just look at how many young people got taken in by PPI and payday loans.
A few months back I had a typical builder-looking bloke (yes I am frightfully middle class) pull up outside my house and start trying to sell me block paving. His firm was doing a drive down the road so had all the equipment hired already and could "save me about 3k" if I agreed to have it done in the next few weeks. Told him I was busy, etc, but he just came back again so I told him I couldn't afford it, having (truthfully) just hired a gardener for a lot of work. He started talking about what an amazing deal I was missing out on, told me I should get a loan, or borrow from friends etc. In the end I said I always stick to budgets and had about £300 left for home improvements so if he could do it for that I'd be interested.... he then got annoyed at me telling me I was wasting his time talking about numbers like that.... I chose not to remind him he was trying the hard sell on me, I hadn't asked him to come round ever!
The point is that these people are often successful in breaking down initial resistance to a sale. Some people can feel rude or impolite by just shutting down an offer (I'm the same) and often reach for "I'm busy" or "I can't afford it" but there are obvious counters to those and once a salesperson has shut down those escape options it can look like agreement is the easiest way out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jadenim wrote: Probably difficult to ban, I’d say the best route would be to introduce a compulsory 14-day cooling off period for door-to-door sales, same as for insurance and distance selling, etc.
Even then, you're hoping that the people you're dealing with are a legitimate company that would honour that. If you've paid cash to people who then just disappear then you're out of luck. Or if you have to get a CCJ against someone it's still time and effort that you have to put in.
Pretty sure you've got a 14 day period where you can change your mind and cancel the purchase, since this was a contract with a seller outside his or her place of business. They're also obliged to give you easily understood information about how you cancel the purchase before you commit to anything.
In a cruel twist of irony, I know this because it's in an EU consumer protection directive.
Riquende wrote: The point is that these people are often successful in breaking down initial resistance to a sale. Some people can feel rude or impolite by just shutting down an offer (I'm the same) and often reach for "I'm busy" or "I can't afford it" but there are obvious counters to those and once a salesperson has shut down those escape options it can look like agreement is the easiest way out.
I find a response of "I don't own the property, hence it's not up to me" can shut down cold callers pretty quickly. There's nothing they can say then because you can just repeat the same response. If you are not authorised to action the works then they usually stop bothering you.
If you are feeling particularly vindictive or want a laugh then acting 'slightly insane' can be a laugh (but only afterwards otherwise it gives the game away).
For example if they ask about block paving, you respond with "I like cows". It's such a completely out there response that most people have no idea how to deal with it. Then regardless of what their response is just continue talking about cows ("Do you like cows, I think cows smell like dandelions") or whatever flavour of madness you invent. Basically it means you control the conversation and as long as you steer well away from block paving it can be a laugh seeing how they respond. Same goes of cold calling on the phone - sometimes I see how long I can string them along. Strangely I don't get many cold phone calls these days!
Future War Cultist wrote: Door to door salespeople should be outlawed. I’m sorry, I just fell for one and I’m going crazy trying to undo it. How difficult that’s proving to be is very worrying. I’m looking at this and I’m imagining what more vulnerable people must go through. Easy targets.
I'm sorry to hear that, and I hope you haven't lost any cash.
Damn those salesmen!!!
They are nothing but pieces of
I'm lucky in the fact that I live in the middle of nowhere, and have a long drive with a pretty unobstructed view, so I can spot TV licence men, Jehovah witnesses or salespeople, and hide behind the curtains until they go.
Riquende wrote: The point is that these people are often successful in breaking down initial resistance to a sale. Some people can feel rude or impolite by just shutting down an offer (I'm the same) and often reach for "I'm busy" or "I can't afford it" but there are obvious counters to those and once a salesperson has shut down those escape options it can look like agreement is the easiest way out.
I find a response of "I don't own the property, hence it's not up to me" can shut down cold callers pretty quickly. There's nothing they can say then because you can just repeat the same response. If you are not authorised to action the works then they usually stop bothering you.
If you are feeling particularly vindictive or want a laugh then acting 'slightly insane' can be a laugh (but only afterwards otherwise it gives the game away).
For example if they ask about block paving, you respond with "I like cows". It's such a completely out there response that most people have no idea how to deal with it. Then regardless of what their response is just continue talking about cows ("Do you like cows, I think cows smell like dandelions") or whatever flavour of madness you invent. Basically it means you control the conversation and as long as you steer well away from block paving it can be a laugh seeing how they respond. Same goes of cold calling on the phone - sometimes I see how long I can string them along. Strangely I don't get many cold phone calls these days!
I have been temptee to start replying to sellers in japanese and see how long it lasts. Too bad i can't teli in advance if it's seller or not
Thanks for the responses guys. They’re much appreciated.
I’ve just got off the phone to them and it’s all cancelled, and I’ll get the money back in 3-5 working days. Or at least that’s what they say. Their email address was a dud. That...concerned me a bit actually.
You know what really got me? I used to do a similar job to hers; mobile phone retention sales. In mine the people came to me rather than vice versa but it was still hell and still dependant upon meeting sales targets. Absolute nightmare, gave it up after 3 months. So I’m sympathetic to such types and they can ponce on that.
Maybe this all worked out for the best though. She got her sale. What happened afterwards isn’t her problem. I’ll get my money back. Everyone’s happy!
You know what really got me? I used to do a similar job to hers; mobile phone retention sales. In mine the people came to me rather than vice versa but it was still hell and still dependant upon meeting sales targets. Absolute nightmare, gave it up after 3 months. So I’m sympathetic to such types and they can ponce on that.
I have worked sales for most of my adult life, too and also feel quite sympathetic because I've done my share of door knocking (always BtB, though, never to anyone on their home).
My standard reply is something along the lines of "I don't appreciate being bothered by unannounced calls/knocking on my door, and as personal rule I blacklist every company that does that to me". This usually shuts their script about trying to steer the conversation towards the product/offer.
Millions of diabetes patients, including Theresa May herself, could be “seriously disadvantaged” if supplies of insulin are affected by a no-deal Brexit, the chair of the UK medicines regulator has said.
In the latest warning over disruption if Britain crashes out of the EU, Sir Michael Rawlins said the UK imports “every drop” of insulin, a vital medication used by some 3.7 million people to manage the chronic condition.
The prime minister has spoken in the past about how she regularly injects insulin to cope with type 1 diabetes.
Sir Michael, who chairs the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), said officials must ensure drugs do not run out if the government fails to secure a deal with Brussels.
It comes as Matt Hancock, the new health secretary, admitted plans were in motion to stockpile drugs, medical devices and blood products in the event of a no deal, as speculation over such a scenario grows.
The Independent has launched a campaign for a Final Say referendum on the Brexit deal, which has garnered more than 300,000 signatures since its launch on Tuesday.
Speaking in a personal capacity, Sir Michael told the Pharmaceutical Journal: “There are problems, and the Department for Exiting the EU and the Department of Health and Social Care need to work out how it’s going to work.
“Here’s just one example why: we make no insulin in the UK. We import every drop of it.
“You can’t transport insulin around ordinarily because it must be temperature-controlled.”
cannot wait to be a country almost entirely dependent upon foreign aid and good will.
Come and live here (well, don't, obviously, just a turn of phrase ), there is no wow any more. nothing is surprising.
The easiest deal ever, we hold all the cards … to 50 years to see any benefit and soldiers filling supermarkets.
I'm trying an emergency ration pack (thanks very much for the link SeanDrake ), to see what they're like. Not needed to find out in the past 47 years, but due to the stellar decision made by Brexiteers, my family might be about to find out what a food shortage is actually like.
Of course it might not happen, there are still a few months for those who have been completely incapable of achieving anything (or infact even agreeing what they want), in 2 years so far to save the situation.
Give yourselves a big hand Brexiteers, this is your party.
This is just one of the things that was so pitifully small minded about the Brexit vote. Anyone thinking of voting to separate us from the continent should have taken the time to go to Dover, or Hull or wherever, and stand and watch and just fething marvel at what it takes to get 30% of our food across the Channel, to feed roughly 20 million people. Maybe get some slight grasp of what flag waving means in the face of global trade.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Can I thank our American cousins for the thousands of useful emergency survival lists on the internet. Sadly several items, not least assault rifles, are hard to go get hold of here, but I've put together a list of what B&Q (hardware store) can manage.
Darkjim wrote: This is just one of the things that was so pitifully small minded about the Brexit vote. Anyone thinking of voting to separate us from the continent should have taken the time to go to Dover, or Hull or wherever, and stand and watch and just fething marvel at what it takes to get 30% of our food across the Channel, to feed roughly 20 million people. Maybe get some slight grasp of what flag waving means in the face of global trade.
Off-topic, but when I lived in Dover for a year as a kid I loved to watch the activity at the port. I used to do that a lot. Probably because I did not have much else to do considering I had only a few friends there and my dad was always at work in London.
Future War Cultist wrote:Thanks for the responses guys. They’re much appreciated.
I’ve just got off the phone to them and it’s all cancelled, and I’ll get the money back in 3-5 working days. Or at least that’s what they say. Their email address was a dud. That...concerned me a bit actually.
You know what really got me? I used to do a similar job to hers; mobile phone retention sales. In mine the people came to me rather than vice versa but it was still hell and still dependant upon meeting sales targets. Absolute nightmare, gave it up after 3 months. So I’m sympathetic to such types and they can ponce on that.
Maybe this all worked out for the best though. She got her sale. What happened afterwards isn’t her problem. I’ll get my money back. Everyone’s happy!
Good news then, hope everything does actually work out ok.
Agree about sellers though, maybe if there wage wasn't dependent upon sales targets there wouldn't be so much hard selling etc.
The antidote to this (in my experience) was a month in Thailand during a gap year, so many hard sellers. I'm polite, shy and retiring, that didn't work out too well but eventually i just learned to be very rude and dismissive because i didn't want to spend all my money. I just say no i'm not interested over and over and walk out, remembering not to accept a drink, or an offer of a seat etc.
Darkjim wrote:Come and live here (well, don't, obviously, just a turn of phrase ), there is no wow any more. nothing is surprising.
The easiest deal ever, we hold all the cards … to 50 years to see any benefit and soldiers filling supermarkets.
I'm trying an emergency ration pack (thanks very much for the link SeanDrake ), to see what they're like. Not needed to find out in the past 47 years, but due to the stellar decision made by Brexiteers, my family might be about to find out what a food shortage is actually like.
Of course it might not happen, there are still a few months for those who have been completely incapable of achieving anything (or infact even agreeing what they want), in 2 years so far to save the situation.
Give yourselves a big hand Brexiteers, this is your party.
To be fair to brexiters no one spoke of these problems and when they did even mainstream media like the BBC laughed and said it was project fear.
That was one of the major problems with brexit, trump and even these negotiations and there consequences. The media have just glossed over the big problems, given equal time and
legitimacy to views that literally have no supporting evidence and not called them out on it. I can distinctly remember during the referendum chris grayling saying we have a plan
and marr just backing down, then going on to say the german car industry will keep us in the customs union and marr just going "right ok then".
There is too much legitimacy now adays on peoples gut feeling I had an argument with a bloke at work that we had to hire a trade negotiator so effectively had 1 Every paper, news source even the government, even logic said we had 1 trained negotiator.
His argument we are the 5th largest economy we must have lots i don't need to prove it, well if you listen to mainstream liars.
(i explained we don't negotiate trade deals the EU does that's why his side wanted to leave. I even pointed out the express said it, a paper he reads he said nah I'm right)
Also on stockpiling I'm personally just going to stock up on cans, beans, hot dogs, passata, fruit etc. you can even buy potatoes and other veg that you might not usually buy tinned
and allsorts of weird stuff like pulled pork, and full English breakfast in a can.
Add in some dried stuff rice, pasta, potatoes etc. but also stuff you might not use normally like dried milk.
This way it's not overly expensive (you don't need a 25 year lifespan on something you might use in 10 months) but also if everything goes OK you can just give anything you wouldn't
normally use to a food bank.
I would also like to point out to my fellow members don't forget about toiletries soap, toothpaste, toilet paper etc. any knock to our logistical supply line may cause unseen damage,
anyone seen the madness around Christmas or black friday? Imagine instead people fighting for what they may believe is the last loaf of bread or whatever for WEEKS OR MONTHS not just the shops closing for a couple of days.
Darkjim wrote: This is just one of the things that was so pitifully small minded about the Brexit vote. Anyone thinking of voting to separate us from the continent should have taken the time to go to Dover, or Hull or wherever, and stand and watch and just fething marvel at what it takes to get 30% of our food across the Channel, to feed roughly 20 million people. Maybe get some slight grasp of what flag waving means in the face of global trade.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Can I thank our American cousins for the thousands of useful emergency survival lists on the internet. Sadly several items, not least assault rifles, are hard to go get hold of here, but I've put together a list of what B&Q (hardware store) can manage.
Lol no assault rifle but I do have a sword and more realisticly I just ordered a pound of lead shot. Going to put half or so in my crutch and top it of with sealant and I will not be using the res to make a blackjack as that is illegal.
Lol no assault rifle but I do have a sword and more realisticly I just ordered a pound of lead shot. Going to put half or so in my crutch and top it of with sealant and I will not be using the res to make a blackjack as that is illegal.
Well don't confuse it with your crotch. That could be a painful mistake!
Anyway back to politics. I see that there is a suggestion that we should all get ID cards not just EU citizens. Now I'm opposed to the idea for all parties. First comes voluntary ID cards, then mandatory, then illegal not to carry one. Slow, but steady steps to whittle awya personal freedoms, all on the back of the excuse of pandering to bigotry.
Now you can be offensive or racist, that is just fine (especially if you win your seat). However we have a proposal that someone not convicted of a crime can be barred from standing as an MP as determined by the government and politicians of the day. I mean that isn't ripe for abuse. Keep on calling out Boris for lying, sorry can't stand against him. Now I have no opposition to people being charged with hate crimes, death threats and so forth. However a system where incumbent politicians can decide whether someone is being trolled. Fine call them out by all means...but ones persons trolling might just be someone asking them inconvenient truths.
Still at least we no longer have a gaff prone Foreigh Secretary...oh wait.
The UK demonstrates the strength of its post-Brexit international engagement, security involvement and the value of a strong navy by losing the HQ of the EU naval anti-piracy taskforce.
Hunt has been telling the French and the Germans to tell Barnier to concede things to the UK or else it will all be very bad.
Aside from the fact that the French are among the hardest of hardliners, this is unbelievable because it shows that Hunt still does not understand that the EU is not controlled by France and Germany, all the other members get a say and can veto any deal.
Lol no assault rifle but I do have a sword and more realisticly I just ordered a pound of lead shot. Going to put half or so in my crutch and top it of with sealant and I will not be using the res to make a blackjack as that is illegal.
Well don't confuse it with your crotch. That could be a painful mistake!
Anyway back to politics. I see that there is a suggestion that we should all get ID cards not just EU citizens. Now I'm opposed to the idea for all parties. First comes voluntary ID cards, then mandatory, then illegal not to carry one. Slow, but steady steps to whittle awya personal freedoms, all on the back of the excuse of pandering to bigotry.
It is already illegal to not carry an ID here in the Netherlands. It is far from being a big infringement on personal freedom. it is just something you put in your phone or wallet and never think about again.
Da Boss wrote: Hunt has been telling the French and the Germans to tell Barnier to concede things to the UK or else it will all be very bad.
Aside from the fact that the French are among the hardest of hardliners, this is unbelievable because it shows that Hunt still does not understand that the EU is not controlled by France and Germany, all the other members get a say and can veto any deal.
I thought Hunt was a parent? His kids must get great milage out of "give me stuff or I will hold my breath until I die."
Lol no assault rifle but I do have a sword and more realisticly I just ordered a pound of lead shot. Going to put half or so in my crutch and top it of with sealant and I will not be using the res to make a blackjack as that is illegal.
Well don't confuse it with your crotch. That could be a painful mistake!
Anyway back to politics. I see that there is a suggestion that we should all get ID cards not just EU citizens. Now I'm opposed to the idea for all parties. First comes voluntary ID cards, then mandatory, then illegal not to carry one. Slow, but steady steps to whittle awya personal freedoms, all on the back of the excuse of pandering to bigotry.
It is already illegal to not carry an ID here in the Netherlands. It is far from being a big infringement on personal freedom. it is just something you put in your phone or wallet and never think about again.
Seconded, the only issue is if you give it to a select group because that reeks of certain issues. Its really not a big deal if everyone has one from 14 and up.
It is already illegal to not carry an ID here in the Netherlands. It is far from being a big infringement on personal freedom. it is just something you put in your phone or wallet and never think about again.
OK so you can be fined, arrested etc for just being somewhere where you want to be (excepting some sensitive areas) simply because you don't have an piece of plastic? How is that not a restriction on personal freedom? The ability of the state to track where you are at any one time simply because they can ask you to evidence that ID?
13-mile lorry park may last 'many years' after Brexit, impact reports reveal
Brexit impact reports from local councils, obtained by Sky News, reveal exasperation at government planning for March 2019.
The government's "temporary solution" to potential traffic chaos on Kent's roads after Brexit will have to last "many years" as a permanent solution will not be in place until "2023 at the earliest", Sky News can reveal.
According to internal Brexit impact reports from two Conservative-run local councils, the conversion of four lanes of the M20 motorway into a 13-mile (20km) long lorry park could be in place for a number of years after the UK's departure from the EU.
The first preparations for the scheme, known as Operation Brock, have just begun, with hard shoulders about to be strengthened to sustain the weight of hundreds of parked articulated lorries.
Such a scenario is anticipated should either the Channel Tunnel or cross-Channel ferry routes see new customs or regulatory checks after Brexit.
In the internal Brexit impact report from Dover District Council, obtained by Sky News, some exasperation is expressed at the slow pace of central government preparedness.
This includes the lack of long-planned permanent lorry parks as an alternative to Operation Stack, which led to widespread disruption in Kent after disruption in Calais in 2015.
A "permanent solution will not be in place for many years... the 'temporary' traffic-management system Operation Brock will be in force for some time", writes the council in the report from last month.
In a separate report, on the same subject, from Kent County Council, it is anticipated the planning application for a major permanent lorry park will not even be considered until next year "and will not be delivered until 2023 at the earliest".
Kent County Council has told the government this "is not only frustrating but potentially damaging to the UK economy as well as disrupting the daily life of Kent residents and visitors".
Operation Brock involves the four lanes of the southbound carriageway of a 13-mile stretch of the M20, between Maidstone and Ashford, being converted into a lorry park for 2,000 vehicles.
The northbound carriageway will then have a contraflow system of two lanes each for ordinary traffic in both directions.
The government has suggested the need for this disruption is not part of its Brexit plans, and the UK's departure from the EU was not mentioned in the written statement announcing the plan or the consultation document.
This does not appear to be correct, however.
Local businesses have been told it will take up to two weeks to activate the plan, unlike the few minutes Operation Stack requires following news of disruption in Calais.
The only plausible use for such a system is in anticipation of a structural increase in customs and regulatory checks at the UK border following Brexit in March next year.
Kent County Council also point out in its report that "Brock" stands for "Brexit Operations Across Kent".
Local industry sources claim privately that the government did not want its plans for a potential "no deal" Brexit associated with the need to turn a large swathe of the main motorway link with the Continent into a lorry park.
Both councils are concerned about whether it will be delivered on time. It needs to be delivered before any potential change to customs arrangements in March 2019.
The Dover report states "there does not appear to be a plan B".
Meanwhile, Kent County Council says it is "concerned" the plans "do not appear to be far enough advanced to be ready in time for the UK's exit from the EU" and the scheme, in any case, will still cause "massive disruption to both strategic and local traffic".
This is the basis of some of the warnings from government in recent days about the risk to food supplies and the need to stockpile medicines, medical devices and blood plasma products.
The Dover document is especially important because the council is the Port Health Authority responsible for food safety checks required post-Brexit at the Port of Dover and the Channel Tunnel.
The report questions whether it is "fully understood" by central government that the Port Health Authority will not have powers "to physically stop vehicles"; that officials "in the large are blind as to what is entering the port"; the layout of the port means there is "nothing to stop vehicles leaving" Dover; there are "inadequate facilities to inspect and store food" and "no facilities to park vehicles waiting for examination".
Such checks have not occurred since 1992 at these sites and there is a shortage of vets to provide them.
The government hopes its Chequers plan for Brexit, including a common rulebook for goods and agri-food, will avoid the need to instigate new border checks.
But they will be difficult to avoid in a no deal scenario, and the EU has vowed to enforce them; even if - as Sky News reported earlier this year - the government's secret plan is to waive almost all such checks on goods coming in to the UK.
The Dover report expresses some uncertainty about even in which country such checks will be required.
It says: "Current systems are based on juxtaposed controls being conducted in France and England... once outside the EU such [juxtaposed] controls may cease".
"We cannot begin to surmise... the substantial workforce required to provide a service at the juxtaposed positions," it adds.
The government was due to report in detail on its contingencies for a no deal Brexit in the following weeks.
This has been delayed after some public concern over the prospect of Brexit stockpiling, according to government insiders.
Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt will visit Paris and Vienna on Tuesday to warn "it is time for the EU to engage with our proposals, or we potentially face the prospect of a no-deal by accident, which would be very challenging for both the UK and E
The government has suggested the need for this disruption is not part of its Brexit plans, and the UK's departure from the EU was not mentioned in the written statement announcing the plan or the consultation document.
This does not appear to be correct, however.
Local businesses have been told it will take up to two weeks to activate the plan, unlike the few minutes Operation Stack requires following news of disruption in Calais.
The only plausible use for such a system is in anticipation of a structural increase in customs and regulatory checks at the UK border following Brexit in March next year.
Kent County Council also point out in its report that "Brock" stands for "Brexit Operations Across Kent".
we are being led by morons.
TWO YEARS of this unmitigated gak. And still, this is the best they can do.
How well is Brexit going? Use the Brexit Barometer: Are prominent supporters of Brexit falling over themselves to suggest our current state is someone else’s fault or are they scrambling to take credit for it?
It is already illegal to not carry an ID here in the Netherlands. It is far from being a big infringement on personal freedom. it is just something you put in your phone or wallet and never think about again.
OK so you can be fined, arrested etc for just being somewhere where you want to be (excepting some sensitive areas) simply because you don't have an piece of plastic? How is that not a restriction on personal freedom? The ability of the state to track where you are at any one time simply because they can ask you to evidence that ID?
What is the purpose of an ID card then?
No, they can only ID you if they have a genuine reason, such as public unrest or when you might have witnessed a crime or have been involved in an accident (so usually when they are already fining you or giving assistance). Also how does the state track you? If anything they have way better methods to track you like the Dutch travel card or your bank pass instead of randomly checking IDs in a region hoping you're in there.
The use of it is huge, you need it in education, healthcare and banks etc. Without an ID card you would basically be locked out of vital services. It restricts personal freedom the same way mandatory insurance does, not at all really.
No, they can only ID you if they have a genuine reason, such as public unrest or when you might have witnessed a crime or have been involved in an accident (so usually when they are already fining you or giving assistance).
If you aren't carrying a random piece of plastic then surely that would be a criminal offence and as such the only reason they need is a suspicion that you aren't carrying that ID on you? Assuming I am understanding you, that you always have to carry that ID on you. As such the state (as in the force acting on its behalf).
Also how does the state track you? If anything they have way better methods to track you like the Dutch travel card or your bank pass instead of randomly checking IDs in a region hoping you're in there.
In that you can always be asked for that ID which gives the state (or those acting on it) the ability to ask you to identify you even when it is none of their business. That is reducing the ability of yourself to be anonymous in your actions if you wish to be. That's a significant restriction on your personal freedom of choice.
The use of it is huge, you need it in education, healthcare and banks etc. Without an ID card you would basically be locked out of vital services.
Why should you need a piece of plastic to use an education service? Is a child banned from an proper education because they don't have a piece of plastic? Why should you need a piece a plastic to determine whether you can access the healthcare system? If you, for example, have a contagious and lethal strain of the flu should you be denied treatment simply because you aren't on a state's register?
No, they can only ID you if they have a genuine reason, such as public unrest or when you might have witnessed a crime or have been involved in an accident (so usually when they are already fining you or giving assistance).
If you aren't carrying a random piece of plastic then surely that would be a criminal offence and as such the only reason they need is a suspicion that you aren't carrying that ID on you? Assuming I am understanding you, that you always have to carry that ID on you. As such the state (as in the force acting on its behalf).
No that isn't sufficient reason and you can file a complaint and have the fine dismissed. Because we have an identification duty, not a carrying one. In practice this means that the police can't ask for your ID unless they actually have a convincing reason to do so. If we had a carrying duty they could card us when they wanted without cause.
Also how does the state track you? If anything they have way better methods to track you like the Dutch travel card or your bank pass instead of randomly checking IDs in a region hoping you're in there.
In that you can always be asked for that ID which gives the state (or those acting on it) the ability to ask you to identify you even when it is none of their business. That is reducing the ability of yourself to be anonymous in your actions if you wish to be. That's a significant restriction on your personal freedom of choice.
Again, you can't always be asked for ID, we don't have a carrying duty. This is a misconception on the understanding of how the system works.
The use of it is huge, you need it in education, healthcare and banks etc. Without an ID card you would basically be locked out of vital services.
Why should you need a piece of plastic to use an education service? Is a child banned from an proper education because they don't have a piece of plastic? Why should you need a piece a plastic to determine whether you can access the healthcare system? If you, for example, have a contagious and lethal strain of the flu should you be denied treatment simply because you aren't on a state's register?
Because the education service is public in the Netherlands, as you are required by law to posses an ID from 14 onward, you need it to use the education service unless you're a foreign national which requires other papers. You can make it through elementary and high school without them requesting it, higher education does. Don't you need something like a birth certificate to do that in the UK? The healthcare system is also partly public, so the same criteria apply, except of course they won't ask for it during emergencies, so no that example doesn't fly. But following an education (until you're 18), having insurance (either on your parents plan or your own from 18) and having an ID (14) are legal requirements for Dutch citizens.
In the UK you need pieces of paper to access services. Stuff like utility bills or whatever else. That is much more inconvenient than having an ID card.
The British paranoia about ID cards has never made sense to me. It is actually causing lots of problems, like one of the reasons ye have no proper numbers on how many immigrants are in the country is because of the lack of ID. Having ID can also protect you - the Windrush people whose documents were destroyed would have still been "part of the system" if there was an ID card system.
My wife needs her ID card for all those reasons, because she is Japanese and has to prove her entitlement as a foreign citizen with indefinite leave to remain in the UK.
I think the time has come where a national ID card makes some kind of sense.
That said, as far as I know, the UK is the only nation in Europe which doesn't have national ID cards. The UK can register all EU citizens simply by scanning their ID cards. (A work colleague who is Lithuanian uses her Lithuanian ID card rather than her passport for this purpose, simply because it is a lot more portable.)
EU countries with UK residents, like Spain, could issue a Spanish ID card with a special category designation to UK citizens.
All this being said, without a proper Brexit agreement, everything will simply fall apart chaotically for the 5 million residents of EU in the UK, and UK residents in the EU.
Ireland also does not have ID, but they are working on a half arsed version of it. We would have joined Schengen, and had Schengen IDs, but we had to stay out because the UK did, and we needed to maintain the CTA to respect the Good Friday Agreement.
No, they can only ID you if they have a genuine reason, such as public unrest or when you might have witnessed a crime or have been involved in an accident (so usually when they are already fining you or giving assistance).
If you aren't carrying a random piece of plastic then surely that would be a criminal offence and as such the only reason they need is a suspicion that you aren't carrying that ID on you? Assuming I am understanding you, that you always have to carry that ID on you. As such the state (as in the force acting on its behalf).
Also how does the state track you? If anything they have way better methods to track you like the Dutch travel card or your bank pass instead of randomly checking IDs in a region hoping you're in there.
In that you can always be asked for that ID which gives the state (or those acting on it) the ability to ask you to identify you even when it is none of their business. That is reducing the ability of yourself to be anonymous in your actions if you wish to be. That's a significant restriction on your personal freedom of choice.
The use of it is huge, you need it in education, healthcare and banks etc. Without an ID card you would basically be locked out of vital services.
Why should you need a piece of plastic to use an education service? Is a child banned from an proper education because they don't have a piece of plastic? Why should you need a piece a plastic to determine whether you can access the healthcare system? If you, for example, have a contagious and lethal strain of the flu should you be denied treatment simply because you aren't on a state's register?
You seem to misunderstand a few things about how that "piece of plastic" works in practice, at least in the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, a police officer can not suddenly stop you and demand to see your ID card. The police officer has to have an actual need to know the identity of the person he is dealing with, and he has to be able to show this need existed afterwards. There have even been given clear examples of when a police officer can ask you for your ID, and when they can not. And no, a "suspicion" that you are not carrying an ID does not warrant a police officer asking you to show it.
On a side note: Dutch law also states that you can also ID yourself using your drivers license, passport or residence permit.
As for denial of services on not being able to identify yourself, healthcare is an obvious exemption. This despite the fact that hospitals would like some certainty that you are who you say you are, just so they can be sure the medical bills get sent to the right health insurance company.
In addition there are scenarios where not being able to identify yourself will lead to a denial of service. There are a number of laws in place to counter fraud, money laundering and funding of terrorism. These laws are applicable to banks, other financial service providers, accountants, lawyers, public notaries and the like, and stipulate that they have to know who the ultimate stakeholder of their services is.
So not only do they need to probe whether or not Boris the Chechen is requesting services merely for himself, or to help out his terrorist buddy Al-Farrage, they also need to provide evidence that they checked this. And that is where that "piece of plastic" comes in really handy, as you'll have either that or your drivers license in your wallet anyway, saving you the trouble of having to dig up your passport just so some no-name office worker can make a copy of it.
I always thought that one reason we have not had them is we don;t trust our government with that sort of power.
I don't think "we" -- i.e. the UK citizenship -- need ID cards. I think we can lean on the fact that all EU citizens except UK and Eire citizens already have ID cards.
This is probably the best plan, since it is clear that our current government can't be trusted to find its arse in the dark with both hands, or fight its out of a wet paper bag, let alone organise something as complicated as a piss-up in a brewery.
If we did have ID cards, though, we should be very careful about turning into the sort of ghastly hard-line dictatorship we see in countries like Denmark, Belgium, or Italy.
One thing my job entails is making car number plates for the public and trade. Having a single universal form of ID would cut down on a lot of paper work and confusion. That said the amount of people who don't even know where there drivers license is, never mind carry it with them is amazing. Given the absolute meltdowns I've witnessed over the years from asking to see peoples license and V5 document I wouldn't envy anyone who had to turn people away from any kind of public service due to them doing the same with an ID card.
I always thought that one reason we have not had them is we don;t trust our government with that sort of power.
I don't think "we" -- i.e. the UK citizenship -- need ID cards. I think we can lean on the fact that all EU citizens except UK and Eire citizens already have ID cards.
This is probably the best plan, since it is clear that our current government can't be trusted to find its arse in the dark with both hands, or fight its out of a wet paper bag, let alone organise something as complicated as a piss-up in a brewery.
If we did have ID cards, though, we should be very careful about turning into the sort of ghastly hard-line dictatorship we see in countries like Denmark, Belgium, or Italy.
Yeah. Belgium is terrible. Their regime forces people to eat Brussels sprouts! And rumour has it that some people were tortured so badly that they went mad and started speaking *shudders* French. Quelle horreur! And it all started with ID cards.
I always thought that one reason we have not had them is we don;t trust our government with that sort of power.
What power? The government already has all of the data which would be on an ID card anyway through people's driving licenses, birth records, the election register etc.
You seem to misunderstand a few things about how that "piece of plastic" works in practice, at least in the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, a police officer can not suddenly stop you and demand to see your ID card. The police officer has to have an actual need to know the identity of the person he is dealing with, and he has to be able to show this need existed afterwards. There have even been given clear examples of when a police officer can ask you for your ID, and when they can not. And no, a "suspicion" that you are not carrying an ID does not warrant a police officer asking you to show it.
Then I think we are talking at cross purposes. What is the point of *having* to always carry ID on you (and illegal not to do so) if it isn't enforceable?
I always thought that one reason we have not had them is we don;t trust our government with that sort of power.
What power? The government already has all of the data which would be on an ID card anyway through people's driving licenses, birth records, the election register etc.
I think this is moving away from the topic at hand - whether it should be mandatory, and illegal not to do so. It's not an argument about whether there are records of us. The question is whether it should be mandatory to have a government specified form of ID on you at all times, whether that is going for a walk in the Peak District, to going to school, to going to the hospital for a broken leg after you fall off the peak district. It's the argument that the right to anonymity is a right for any person (noting this argument comes up a lot on the internet and generally governments feel that is correct); however anonymity can be opposed when you are present in a biological form.
Why should someone have to prove who they are if they break their leg whilst walking in the peak district etc?
I always thought that one reason we have not had them is we don;t trust our government with that sort of power.
What power? The government already has all of the data which would be on an ID card anyway through people's driving licenses, birth records, the election register etc.
I only carry my driving licence and not always that. I am not forced to do so.
If we did have ID cards, though, we should be very careful about turning into the sort of ghastly hard-line dictatorship we see in countries like Denmark, Belgium, or Italy
Da Boss wrote: Hunt has been telling the French and the Germans to tell Barnier to concede things to the UK or else it will all be very bad.
Aside from the fact that the French are among the hardest of hardliners, this is unbelievable because it shows that Hunt still does not understand that the EU is not controlled by France and Germany, all the other members get a say and can veto any deal.
Ah yes. Do as we tell you or it's going to be bad. And uk thinks it can boss around...why?
Want eu benefit's, play by our rules. Don't play, feel free but then go out properly
It is already illegal to not carry an ID here in the Netherlands. It is far from being a big infringement on personal freedom. it is just something you put in your phone or wallet and never think about again.
OK so you can be fined, arrested etc for just being somewhere where you want to be (excepting some sensitive areas) simply because you don't have an piece of plastic? How is that not a restriction on personal freedom? The ability of the state to track where you are at any one time simply because they can ask you to evidence that ID?
What is the purpose of an ID card then?
Our view of tracking is quite different then. Rarely being asked to show results in sample pattern that doesn't really show anything. For tracking that's worthless. And i suppose without id card you would be lying to police who you are to prevent their tracking then?
Why should someone have to prove who they are if they break their leg whilst walking in the peak district etc?
Police don't ask id for breaking legs. And hospital prolly wants to know where to send the bill so unrelated 3rd party doesn't get bill for your hospital trip
I have no problem with an ID card per se; it’s fundamentally little different to a driving licence (and would ideally replace that).
I had a real issue with the previous ID card proposal that Labour tried to impose, because of the monolithic government database that they were trying to build in the background. A) I have no faith in the government being able to keep something that extensive secure, B) I don’t trust the government (or individuals in it) not to abuse having all of the information on you, ever, in one place and C) all previous evidence for government computer projects suggests that they would have poured billions into it and never got it working satisfactorily anyway.
If we were to have an ID card, it should be kept simple; name, address, D.O.B. and the ID number. Everything else should be kept on their own systems, which can then just reference the number.
Wow. And I thought Russians were paranoid towards their government...
What kind of crimes did the British government commit to make its people so paranoid?
What kind of crimes did the British government commit to make its people so paranoid?
Nothing.
Then one has to remember that we're talking about a people where (allegedly) the majority decided that it would be a good idea to ruin their own country for the foreseeable future for no real reason other than being able to say "at least I'm pulling the trigger myself" while the rest of us wonder why they're aiming a gun at their own head in the first place.
For the sake of the UK, I really hope you'll get a second referendum once it's clearly laid out what leaving the EU really means for the country and it's people. No one really wants to see you guys crash and burn (except possibly yourselves...)
tneva82 wrote: So seems uk hasn#t ruled out national parks as options on where to put radioactive waste from nuclear plants. Extra excitement for park visitors?-)
It goes well together with the nerve agents dumped in city parks. Gives some variation.
You seem to misunderstand a few things about how that "piece of plastic" works in practice, at least in the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, a police officer can not suddenly stop you and demand to see your ID card. The police officer has to have an actual need to know the identity of the person he is dealing with, and he has to be able to show this need existed afterwards. There have even been given clear examples of when a police officer can ask you for your ID, and when they can not. And no, a "suspicion" that you are not carrying an ID does not warrant a police officer asking you to show it.
Then I think we are talking at cross purposes. What is the point of *having* to always carry ID on you (and illegal not to do so) if it isn't enforceable?
Because it is enforceable the moment you find yourself in a situation where the police can ask you for your ID? And because you would rather not get another fine added on top of the one you are already going to get?
ATM the police can ask you for your driving licence in the event of a car crash, and you can say it's at home and you will present it at the nearest police station within 24 hours.
You are not legally required to carry it with you. Though I think most drivers do, since it is very conveniently sized and can be used to exchange insurance details.
ID cards could be handled the same way.
At the moment, if you need to prove your UK citizenship you need to carry your passport or birth certificate. People are being asked more often to present these documents thanks to the Tories' plan to create a "hostile environment" for immigrants.
However I think this is all a digression. The last time the government trialled ID cards it was an expensive disaster. There is no way they will manage to implement a scheme in the next five years at least. Therefore we should concentrate on other ways to solve the problem of citizenship after Brexit.
Or better, avoid the problem entirely by cancelling Brexit.
tneva82 wrote: We don't have address in our card though that data is elsewhere. Keeps from having to get new one every time you move
I still have the address on my parents' home on my ID card even though you're supposed to update it every time you move, and it's been something like 18 years, 2 ID cards and 5 different addresses since I moved.
It's not the cost (IIRC it's 14 euro), but the PITA of asking for an appointment, etc. and in any case the number is all you need to ID yourself.
A unique, government-issued number to be able to identify yourself to anyone who needs to know and you are actually you. To open an account or get a credit card, cash a cheque, utilities, vote, have a driving license or passport issued, enroll on higher education, take up employment, sign any kind of contract etc. the only acceptable way to ID yourself is the ID card or any other forms of ID which share the number (passport and driving license contain that number, too).
There's a reason why identity theft/fraud is much rarer in countries with an ID card system.
Police don't ask id for breaking legs. And hospital prolly wants to know where to send the bill so unrelated 3rd party doesn't get bill for your hospital trip
That really is merging two points that wasn't intended if that is how it has been interpreted. Specifcally Disciple of Fate commented that in the Netherlands
The use of it is huge, you need it in education, healthcare and banks etc. Without an ID card you would basically be locked out of vital services.
If it just a bill then surely another form of documentation would be more useful (e.g. insurance). Although this is conjecture on a point as I don't know how the Netherlands manage their health service. Still, whether you can pay or not, you can be denied a public service simply for not having that ID.
Because it is enforceable the moment you find yourself in a situation where the police can ask you for your ID? And because you would rather not get another fine added on top of the one you are already going to get?
And what use is that to the event at hand. As pointed out why can't you just present the relevant evidence at a later point (e.g. I have my driving licence to show that I am legally allowed to drive). An ID doesn't prove that you can drive. All it is saying is who you are which goes back to the earlier point as to what is the point of making it illegal to not have ID if all it is there to do is stop you being fined?
In the UK now, you need to prove your identity and immigration status to open a bank account, start a new job, access health services, attend a school or university, rent a flat, claim social security, or drive a car.
A unique, government-issued number to be able to identify yourself to anyone who needs to know and you are actually you. To open an account or get a credit card, cash a cheque, utilities, vote, have a driving license or passport issued, enroll on higher education, take up employment, sign any kind of contract etc. the only acceptable way to ID yourself is the ID card or any other forms of ID which share the number (passport and driving license contain that number, too).
There's a reason why identity theft/fraud is much rarer in countries with an ID card system.
Is there evidence for this assertion? If IDs were the panacea for all fraud then it shouldn't happen at all. I can find an article back from 2012 about identity fraud
and yes the UK does have the largest percentage (24%) by population of identity fraud, however conversely one of the lowest amounts per person that gets stolen on average (£1076). However some of those countries with IDs (Germany, Italy etc) have the highest amounts stolen on average per person (£28,666, £13180) even though the number of people affected is lower (15% and 14% respectively). Therefore from a value perspective these countries with ID cards have a much larger fraud problem then the UK does. I would postulate that the ID cards actually make things worse. People trust the ID card system so implicitly that when someone does get those details then they can run rampant on someones account because it is unquestioned. Whereas by not having ID cards people require multiple forms of evidence to say who you are for larger value items especially and hence the system is much more effective at stopping these types of activities. So hence the assertion that ID cards help prevent identity fraud is questionable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: It'd kill off this UK garbage aboit utility bills too, which let parents buy their kids access into better schools.
Not sure what you are referencing to here? But I don't have children (thank goodness) but for my brother's niece they have to put forward three schools of preference and then the local authority makes a determination based on the overall demand. Generally the nearer your home address is of the child the more likely you are to get into that school. I'm not sure how an ID card helps with the problem that better schools generally result in higher local house prices which then means you get children that are more driven and the cycle repeats. I'm not sure how ID cards stops this?
In the UK now, you need to prove your identity and immigration status to open a bank account, start a new job, access health services, attend a school or university, rent a flat, claim social security, or drive a car.
This is getting pretty Big Brotherish.
They are basically trying to make the population be the immigration system for them. Trying to transfer the Tory governments bigoted views by forcing the rest of the population to action it on their behalf. I wonder how many people tend to ignore these rules out of a point of principle. I know I would.
And what use is that to the event at hand. As pointed out why can't you just present the relevant evidence at a later point (e.g. I have my driving licence to show that I am legally allowed to drive). An ID doesn't prove that you can drive. All it is saying is who you are which goes back to the earlier point as to what is the point of making it illegal to not have ID if all it is there to do is stop you being fined?
Why can't you just present the relevant evidence at a later point? Simple. What is to stop you from saying this, only to follow it up by not showing up at all?
Why can't you just present the relevant evidence at a later point? Simple. What is to stop you from saying this, only to follow it up by not showing up at all?
Except that doesn't happen. For those people that have been in an accident and are asked to return with the driving licence then people do this anyway as they want to evidence that they weren't acting illegally. If there is suspicion you are acting illegally then you will be arrested anyway (e.g. by dangerous driving) at the time. Why make someone a criminal for simply not having ID on them even if no suggestion of a criminal act was undertaken to result in that request for an ID?
Maybe people in the Netherlands are less trustworthy than in the UK? (joke only!)
Police don't ask id for breaking legs. And hospital prolly wants to know where to send the bill so unrelated 3rd party doesn't get bill for your hospital trip
That really is merging two points that wasn't intended if that is how it has been interpreted. Specifcally Disciple of Fate commented that in the Netherlands
The use of it is huge, you need it in education, healthcare and banks etc. Without an ID card you would basically be locked out of vital services.
If it just a bill then surely another form of documentation would be more useful (e.g. insurance). Although this is conjecture on a point as I don't know how the Netherlands manage their health service. Still, whether you can pay or not, you can be denied a public service simply for not having that ID.
Execpt it won't because your insurance card in the NL which hospitals use has the same citizen ID code on it as your ID. So by having an insurance card they know you have an ID so they can operate based on that unless they don't trust you're actually the owner of said insurance card and ask for ID to verify. To get insurance you need that personal ID card for its citizen code.
Again, you won't be denied service, but you need it to register at your GP and show it for insurance purposes. You can just go to any doctor or hospital in the UK and never show any paperwork? You just seem to take issue with the form our paperwork takes, whicj is an ID card which translates into an insurance pass for main use in healthcare.
Execpt it won't because your insurance card in the NL which hospitals use has the same citizen ID code on it as your ID. So by having an insurance card they know you have an ID so they can operate based on that unless they don't trust you're actually the owner of said insurance card and ask for ID to verify. To get insurance you need that personal ID card for its citizen code.
So effectively it is used as a control that you have the financial means to support any health issues. I suppose then that comes down to my 'disrespect' for a system that requires an insurance based health system. In the end it comes down to different perspectives. You should not need to evidence who you are to obtain access to education, health and so forth. If you are ill, you are ill and should be treated as such. If you are child you should be educated as such, etc. So as a question what happens if you don't have that ID when you arrive at the hospital?
You can just go to any doctor or hospital in the UK and never show any paperwork?
Yes you don't have to show paperwork to get medical treatment in the UK. If you arrive at Accident and Emergency they will treat you regardless. You only have to register at a GP because they only cover certain catchment areas but you are not obligated to show ID (or wasn't last time I registered anyway). However if you aren't registered you can still go to a walk in doctors to get looked at. The only reason you register at a GP is so that they can keep all your medical records together and have a full history of your medical treatment (and any reactions - e.g. allergic to penicillin). there is a slight proviso in that the NHS in theory is meant to ensure the costs for foreign nationals is charged to the relevant countries but that is more an issue with the Tory party's and certain elements of the population bigotry and paranoia that we are overwhelmed by 'NHS tourists' (which we are not).
You just seem to take issue with the form our paperwork takes, whicj is an ID card which translates into an insurance pass for main use in healthcare.
No, it is not a specific attack against the Netherlands. I have an opposition to ID cards overall. It just happens that you started talking about your system. It's not an issue specifically with your country's system.
Because it is enforceable the moment you find yourself in a situation where the police can ask you for your ID? And because you would rather not get another fine added on top of the one you are already going to get?
And what use is that to the event at hand. As pointed out why can't you just present the relevant evidence at a later point (e.g. I have my driving licence to show that I am legally allowed to drive). An ID doesn't prove that you can drive. All it is saying is who you are which goes back to the earlier point as to what is the point of making it illegal to not have ID if all it is there to do is stop you being fined?
Because the ID gives proof of who you are if you don't have things like a drivers license? For example if you get on the train and refuse to buy a ticket, they ID you so the fine gets put on your name. Similar a lot of government buildings require you to have an access pass you can only get in exchange for an ID. Banks and insurance companies want to see it as proof that its you. Its proof that you are who you are and streamlines a lot of services that already requested your citizen code to begin with. In a lot of cases a drivers license will do, unless it government services or you lack a drivers license.
Whirlwind wrote: As pointed out why can't you just present the relevant evidence at a later point (e.g. I have my driving licence to show that I am legally allowed to drive).
Because that relies on the police being confident you are who you say you are. Producing documents later means I can claim to be you and then not produce your ID within 24 hours and be untraceable.
Plus it just adds another layer of beurocracy.
I'd be all for making it a legal requirement to be in possession of license and insurance docs when driving. Especially since driving licenses are credit card sized for anyone who's renewed theirs in the last 20 years.
Herzlos wrote: It'd kill off this UK garbage aboit utility bills too, which let parents buy their kids access into better schools.
Not sure what you are referencing to here? But I don't have children (thank goodness) but for my brother's niece they have to put forward three schools of preference and then the local authority makes a determination based on the overall demand. Generally the nearer your home address is of the child the more likely you are to get into that school. I'm not sure how an ID card helps with the problem that better schools generally result in higher local house prices which then means you get children that are more driven and the cycle repeats. I'm not sure how ID cards stops
You just need to produce some utility bills as proof of address. So to get into a better school you just need to buy some utility bills in your name at an appropriate address. This seems to be usually done by offering to pay someone else's bill if they put it in your name.
Execpt it won't because your insurance card in the NL which hospitals use has the same citizen ID code on it as your ID. So by having an insurance card they know you have an ID so they can operate based on that unless they don't trust you're actually the owner of said insurance card and ask for ID to verify. To get insurance you need that personal ID card for its citizen code.
So effectively it is used as a control that you have the financial means to support any health issues. I suppose then that comes down to my 'disrespect' for a system that requires an insurance based health system. In the end it comes down to different perspectives. You should not need to evidence who you are to obtain access to education, health and so forth. If you are ill, you are ill and should be treated as such. If you are child you should be educated as such, etc. So as a question what happens if you don't have that ID when you arrive at the hospital?
We have a very minor insurance system (its a public/private mix) and it costs you almost nothing as the government almost fully reimburses the basic cost if you can't afford it (with support its about 10 euros a month, which means that those who earn more contribute more in taxes to allow the government to support the insurance of those who earn less, its on a sliding income scale, you get more government benefits if you really can't afford it though). So no, everybody has the financial means because having a health insurance is mandatory and you can get government support for it. Again, do you need zero paperwork to go to school or the hospital in the UK? They just let you access all those services without any verification?
Again if you don't have the ID on you they will still help cause they can't refuse you, because they can always request your info in their system, with your GP or the insurer. You need to let go of the idea they won't help because we have stated that isn't the case. I lost my insurance card for a while and they had no issue helping me when I named my insurer without having to show ID.
You can just go to any doctor or hospital in the UK and never show any paperwork?
Yes you don't have to show paperwork to get medical treatment in the UK. If you arrive at Accident and Emergency they will treat you regardless. You only have to register at a GP because they only cover certain catchment areas but you are not obligated to show ID (or wasn't last time I registered anyway). However if you aren't registered you can still go to a walk in doctors to get looked at. The only reason you register at a GP is so that they can keep all your medical records together and have a full history of your medical treatment (and any reactions - e.g. allergic to penicillin). there is a slight proviso in that the NHS in theory is meant to ensure the costs for foreign nationals is charged to the relevant countries but that is more an issue with the Tory party's and certain elements of the population bigotry and paranoia that we are overwhelmed by 'NHS tourists' (which we are not).
They will treat you here regardless to. So you having to register at the GP is basically the same here, as your GP always refers you to the hospital. Of course you can get urgent treatment, but our healthcare is set up slighlty different, so they do want to have your insurance information. If you work here as a foreigner you are obligated by law to get a dutch insurance like the rest of us, but if you're on vacation you use your own insurance or the EU version.
You just seem to take issue with the form our paperwork takes, whicj is an ID card which translates into an insurance pass for main use in healthcare.
No, it is not a specific attack against the Netherlands. I have an opposition to ID cards overall. It just happens that you started talking about your system. It's not an issue specifically with your country's system.
I didn't say it was an attack on the NL. I said its an issue with our paperwork (which is quite similar around the EU). ID is basically a streamlined piece of paperwork that allows you to access a large range of services without any hassle, as well as allowing you to travel abroad. It used to be that a lot of places had the identification requirement before we got a national ID and it was an absolute mess. Its less fraud sensitive as well as others have said.
Why can't you just present the relevant evidence at a later point? Simple. What is to stop you from saying this, only to follow it up by not showing up at all?
Except that doesn't happen. For those people that have been in an accident and are asked to return with the driving licence then people do this anyway as they want to evidence that they weren't acting illegally. If there is suspicion you are acting illegally then you will be arrested anyway (e.g. by dangerous driving) at the time. Why make someone a criminal for simply not having ID on them even if no suggestion of a criminal act was undertaken to result in that request for an ID?
Maybe people in the Netherlands are less trustworthy than in the UK? (joke only!)
I mentioned earlier that there are situations where the police is not going to ask you for your ID. In this case they are obviously going to ask for your drivers license, which conveniently enough also counts as an ID according to the law. And in the Netherlands, driving around in a car without your drivers license is dumb for more than one reason anyway. Not only would that leave you open to a nice 95 euros fine for not having your license with you, but if you get into an accident while driving you run a real risk that the insurance company will not cover any damage. (granted, this last bit does partially depend on the specific circumstances of the accident.)
It's also important to note that not having some form of ID on you in the Netherlands is merely a violation, and thus on its own only worthy of a fine. It's a small, but important distinction to make, and I suspect I was not clear enough on that. (If that is the case, my apology for that!)
Quite possible that we are less trustworthy!
On a bit of a side note, I love what the brexit does with the value of the quid! Never expected to get these Crypt Ghouls so cheap.
Why can't you just present the relevant evidence at a later point? Simple. What is to stop you from saying this, only to follow it up by not showing up at all?
Except that doesn't happen. For those people that have been in an accident and are asked to return with the driving licence then people do this anyway as they want to evidence that they weren't acting illegally. If there is suspicion you are acting illegally then you will be arrested anyway (e.g. by dangerous driving) at the time. Why make someone a criminal for simply not having ID on them even if no suggestion of a criminal act was undertaken to result in that request for an ID?
Maybe people in the Netherlands are less trustworthy than in the UK? (joke only!)
But it does happen. It's less likely now as the license and insurance systems are computerized and available to the police. They still need to confirm your identity at the roadside before letting you go.
There's rarely a need to submit a producer these days.
Automatically Appended Next Post: GWs profits are hugely up, partially attributed to Brexit (weakening of GBP).
A unique, government-issued number to be able to identify yourself to anyone who needs to know and you are actually you. To open an account or get a credit card, cash a cheque, utilities, vote, have a driving license or passport issued, enroll on higher education, take up employment, sign any kind of contract etc. the only acceptable way to ID yourself is the ID card or any other forms of ID which share the number (passport and driving license contain that number, too).
There's a reason why identity theft/fraud is much rarer in countries with an ID card system.
Is there evidence for this assertion? If IDs were the panacea for all fraud then it shouldn't happen at all. I can find an article back from 2012 about identity fraud
and yes the UK does have the largest percentage (24%) by population of identity fraud, however conversely one of the lowest amounts per person that gets stolen on average (£1076). However some of those countries with IDs (Germany, Italy etc) have the highest amounts stolen on average per person (£28,666, £13180) even though the number of people affected is lower (15% and 14% respectively). Therefore from a value perspective these countries with ID cards have a much larger fraud problem then the UK does. I would postulate that the ID cards actually make things worse. People trust the ID card system so implicitly that when someone does get those details then they can run rampant on someones account because it is unquestioned. Whereas by not having ID cards people require multiple forms of evidence to say who you are for larger value items especially and hence the system is much more effective at stopping these types of activities. So hence the assertion that ID cards help prevent identity fraud is questionable.
In the US or UK I can open a bank account in your name just by taking utility bills from a mailbox or garbage bin and an easily forgeable student card. A government-issued ID is much more difficult and expensive to forge.
This study seems to agree that not having a centrally issued ID is a system weakness.
There was a HUGE fuss years ago about introducing photos on driving licences in England, Scotland and Wales. In Northern Ireland, where we'd had them for years, we found it difficult to understand the fuss given how useful it was to have pocket sized ID.
A unique, government-issued number to be able to identify yourself to anyone who needs to know and you are actually you. To open an account or get a credit card, cash a cheque, utilities, vote, have a driving license or passport issued, enroll on higher education, take up employment, sign any kind of contract etc. the only acceptable way to ID yourself is the ID card or any other forms of ID which share the number (passport and driving license contain that number, too).
There's a reason why identity theft/fraud is much rarer in countries with an ID card system.
Is there evidence for this assertion? If IDs were the panacea for all fraud then it shouldn't happen at all. I can find an article back from 2012 about identity fraud
and yes the UK does have the largest percentage (24%) by population of identity fraud, however conversely one of the lowest amounts per person that gets stolen on average (£1076). However some of those countries with IDs (Germany, Italy etc) have the highest amounts stolen on average per person (£28,666, £13180) even though the number of people affected is lower (15% and 14% respectively). Therefore from a value perspective these countries with ID cards have a much larger fraud problem then the UK does. I would postulate that the ID cards actually make things worse. People trust the ID card system so implicitly that when someone does get those details then they can run rampant on someones account because it is unquestioned. Whereas by not having ID cards people require multiple forms of evidence to say who you are for larger value items especially and hence the system is much more effective at stopping these types of activities. So hence the assertion that ID cards help prevent identity fraud is questionable.
In the US or UK I can open a bank account in your name just by taking utility bills from a mailbox or garbage bin and an easily forgeable student card. A government-issued ID is much more difficult and expensive to forge.
This study seems to agree that not having a centrally issued ID is a system weakness.
Gibraltar is one British territory which has been using ID cards for a long time, and they seem pretty happy with their scheme.
Having worked in banking for a few years, no you can't. Not in the UK at least. You need at minimum another (signed) bank card and a form of proof for that signature to open a bank account. If you're a foreign student or national, you can open a basic bank account, but that is essentially nothing more than a saving account with a cash card. You get no debit or BAC's processes with that. So you need an already valid form of ID to get a fully functioning account.
A unique, government-issued number to be able to identify yourself to anyone who needs to know and you are actually you. To open an account or get a credit card, cash a cheque, utilities, vote, have a driving license or passport issued, enroll on higher education, take up employment, sign any kind of contract etc. the only acceptable way to ID yourself is the ID card or any other forms of ID which share the number (passport and driving license contain that number, too).
There's a reason why identity theft/fraud is much rarer in countries with an ID card system.
Is there evidence for this assertion? If IDs were the panacea for all fraud then it shouldn't happen at all. I can find an article back from 2012 about identity fraud
and yes the UK does have the largest percentage (24%) by population of identity fraud, however conversely one of the lowest amounts per person that gets stolen on average (£1076). However some of those countries with IDs (Germany, Italy etc) have the highest amounts stolen on average per person (£28,666, £13180) even though the number of people affected is lower (15% and 14% respectively). Therefore from a value perspective these countries with ID cards have a much larger fraud problem then the UK does. I would postulate that the ID cards actually make things worse. People trust the ID card system so implicitly that when someone does get those details then they can run rampant on someones account because it is unquestioned. Whereas by not having ID cards people require multiple forms of evidence to say who you are for larger value items especially and hence the system is much more effective at stopping these types of activities. So hence the assertion that ID cards help prevent identity fraud is questionable.
In the US or UK I can open a bank account in your name just by taking utility bills from a mailbox or garbage bin and an easily forgeable student card. A government-issued ID is much more difficult and expensive to forge.
This study seems to agree that not having a centrally issued ID is a system weakness.
Gibraltar is one British territory which has been using ID cards for a long time, and they seem pretty happy with their scheme.
Having worked in banking for a few years, no you can't. Not in the UK at least. You need at minimum another (signed) bank card and a form of proof for that signature to open a bank account. If you're a foreign student or national, you can open a basic bank account, but that is essentially nothing more than a saving account with a cash card. You get no debit or BAC's processes with that. So you need an already valid form of ID to get a fully functioning account.
But don't you need to open an account to get a bank card? How can you open an account in the UK if you need to present a bank card, when you only get a bank card after opening an account? I still don't understand how someone could be against an ID card. It makes things a lot more quick and convenient (like when you want to buy alcohol or when you get arrested or basically do everything for which you need to prove your identity), and it is not like the government is using it to track you or anything (they have the internet and mobile phone networks for that), and all information on it is already known to the government anyway. Not to mention that in a country like the UK, there is little to fear from the government (beyond staggering incompetence of course).
A unique, government-issued number to be able to identify yourself to anyone who needs to know and you are actually you. To open an account or get a credit card, cash a cheque, utilities, vote, have a driving license or passport issued, enroll on higher education, take up employment, sign any kind of contract etc. the only acceptable way to ID yourself is the ID card or any other forms of ID which share the number (passport and driving license contain that number, too).
There's a reason why identity theft/fraud is much rarer in countries with an ID card system.
Is there evidence for this assertion? If IDs were the panacea for all fraud then it shouldn't happen at all. I can find an article back from 2012 about identity fraud
and yes the UK does have the largest percentage (24%) by population of identity fraud, however conversely one of the lowest amounts per person that gets stolen on average (£1076). However some of those countries with IDs (Germany, Italy etc) have the highest amounts stolen on average per person (£28,666, £13180) even though the number of people affected is lower (15% and 14% respectively). Therefore from a value perspective these countries with ID cards have a much larger fraud problem then the UK does. I would postulate that the ID cards actually make things worse. People trust the ID card system so implicitly that when someone does get those details then they can run rampant on someones account because it is unquestioned. Whereas by not having ID cards people require multiple forms of evidence to say who you are for larger value items especially and hence the system is much more effective at stopping these types of activities. So hence the assertion that ID cards help prevent identity fraud is questionable.
In the US or UK I can open a bank account in your name just by taking utility bills from a mailbox or garbage bin and an easily forgeable student card. A government-issued ID is much more difficult and expensive to forge.
This study seems to agree that not having a centrally issued ID is a system weakness.
Gibraltar is one British territory which has been using ID cards for a long time, and they seem pretty happy with their scheme.
Having worked in banking for a few years, no you can't. Not in the UK at least. You need at minimum another (signed) bank card and a form of proof for that signature to open a bank account. If you're a foreign student or national, you can open a basic bank account, but that is essentially nothing more than a saving account with a cash card. You get no debit or BAC's processes with that. So you need an already valid form of ID to get a fully functioning account.
But don't you need to open an account to get a bank card? How can you open an account in the UK if you need to present a bank card, when you only get a bank card after opening an account?
Ithink the bank card is the minimum not the only thing you can use - ie its easier if you already have a bank account.
No no, you need that as a minimum. As in if you have an already registered bank card, that can be accepted as a form of ID. If you're opening an account for the first time, you need a driving licence or a passport. You can't use utility bills, they're trash for all intents and purposes.
Kilkrazy wrote: You probably don't have any utility bills if you don't have a bank account, because how would you pay them?
Another problem with using bills is that a lot of agencies require originals, not the paperless bills we all are encouraged to use these days.
I think the only actual paper bill I receive is the annual council tax bill.
You'd be surprised actually. You can actually make transfers for bill payments through savings accounts, it's just more awkward. A lot of the older generation still tend to do this. Or at least they did when I still worked there.
Lots of bills can be paid from post offices etc using cash too.
The paperless thing usually gets me; I usually need to go into a bank and ask for a printed statement before doing anything that requires proof of address. Whilst that might not be my address (I can move without telling bank) it seems to be enough for every time I've needed it so far.
There is a long tradition in Britain of being suspicious of authority, of uniforms, and of course, wretched ID cards. It's what set us apart from the continent for generations.
It's why some of us don't like soldiers on the streets, or our police turning into paramilitaries, or the intolerence shown to those who don't wear a poppy every November.
But they died for your freedom! Yeah, and I'm exercising that freedom not to wear one, so feth off!
We all know that in such a system, there is nothing worse than some jobsworth with a snifff of power making our lives misreable.
I think I can safely say each and every one of us has suffered that before from some petty pen pusher.
Small card you can use unifiedly rather than having to mix&match other things which contains nothing new goverment doesn't already have. Yep. Reason to be suspicious.
Would make sense if it was with gps tracker or something but as it doesn#t it's just stupid
The last iteration in the UK which cost a fortune and was scrapped almost immediately, involved a huge database of everything. I'm all for the cards as they do make life easier, but against the database because of governmental malice/incompetence.
tneva82 wrote: Small card you can use unifiedly rather than having to mix&match other things which contains nothing new goverment doesn't already have. Yep. Reason to be suspicious.
Would make sense if it was with gps tracker or something but as it doesn#t it's just stupid
GPS is not the only way to track people's movements. As it stands the police can get a decent track of your movements from your use of a mobile phone, credit and debit cards and so forth. However there are checks and balances and they need to apply to get that information.
A *mandatory* ID card scheme places all your details on a national register. To be useful such an ID card scheme needs to be linked to the database for them to be validated (otherwise it is just a glorified student ID card as there is no real way of actively check them). In such a circumstance you then have a continuous stream of data of individuals and the populace's movements. That's an incredibly powerful weapon for both information and manipulation - we only have to look at the issues with Facebook, the Wrexit and Trump campaign etc, to see just how valuable that information is. This is before you think about the value from selling such information (even partially). We already have a situation where they are asking doctors and teachers to perform home office duties. How long until it extends to having to provide such ID at hotels, B&Bs, purchasing train tickets, voting and so forth?
We should all have a right to anonymity and not have to worry that every major action is being recorded and that this can be exploited either on an individual or populace level.
I accept that it might help reduce the likelihood slightly of being affected by fraud (although if you are affected the impact might be higher in value). However I don't see that as a good reason to have mandatory collation of everyone's movements.
tneva82 wrote: Small card you can use unifiedly rather than having to mix&match other things which contains nothing new goverment doesn't already have. Yep. Reason to be suspicious.
Would make sense if it was with gps tracker or something but as it doesn#t it's just stupid
GPS is not the only way to track people's movements. As it stands the police can get a decent track of your movements from your use of a mobile phone, credit and debit cards and so forth. However there are checks and balances and they need to apply to get that information.
A *mandatory* ID card scheme places all your details on a national register. To be useful such an ID card scheme needs to be linked to the database for them to be validated (otherwise it is just a glorified student ID card as there is no real way of actively check them). In such a circumstance you then have a continuous stream of data of individuals and the populace's movements.
The government already has you on a register in the NI database. They know who you are, where you live, how much you make (or you take in pensions) and they assign you a unique number.
It doesn't need to be different from the Gibraltarian system which works since the 40s, is mandatory but is issued free of charge.
People seem to be putting the cart before the horse here. They seem to be objecting to ID cards on the basis of cost and government incompetence with past IT schemes.
You should be objecting to them on the basic principal of liberty.
The government is our servant, not the other way around.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: The last iteration in the UK which cost a fortune and was scrapped almost immediately, involved a huge database of everything. I'm all for the cards as they do make life easier, but against the database because of governmental malice/incompetence.
Making life easier is exactly what they want.
The surrendering of liberty and freedom in a democracy is seldom done by armed men dragging you away in the middle of the night.
Rather, it's the people unwittingly being their own jailor.
As a historic example, the Gestapo wouldn't have been half as effective were it not for people voluntary surrending information on their neighbours.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Not really. And it would be nothing more than an extra driving licence. You wouldn't even give it a second thought once it was issued.
No disrespect, but it's that attitude that makes my blood boil...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: People seem to be putting the cart before the horse here. They seem to be objecting to ID cards on the basis of cost and government incompetence with past IT schemes.
You should be objecting to them on the basic principal of liberty.
The government is our servant, not the other way around.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: The last iteration in the UK which cost a fortune and was scrapped almost immediately, involved a huge database of everything. I'm all for the cards as they do make life easier, but against the database because of governmental malice/incompetence.
Making life easier is exactly what they want.
The surrendering of liberty and freedom in a democracy is seldom done by armed men dragging you away in the middle of the night.
Rather, it's the people unwittingly being their own jailor.
As a historic example, the Gestapo wouldn't have been half as effective were it not for people voluntary surrending information on their neighbours.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Not really. And it would be nothing more than an extra driving licence. You wouldn't even give it a second thought once it was issued.
No disrespect, but it's that attitude that makes my blood boil...
Get over it. As has already been stated, the Government knows all your details and how you live your life already. National Insurance gives them all that and more. An ID would be nothing more than a consolidation of that info. Actually I'm going to go into a bit more detail here, as this junk about being your own jailor is pissing me off. I worked in banking, as I stated a page back and currently work in payroll. If I open my work laptop now, I can access 10's of thousands of peoples data in the UK. Everything from their financial history, addresses, spouses, P11D, P60, P45 history, everything in a few seconds. Now stop and think a moment. If I can access that in a few clicks, the Government has all that and more at their fingertips already. If you've ever worked, registered for a GP or anything official at all, the Government already has it and knows your history and can quite easily evaluate you. All this junk about liberty, being your own jailor etc is junk. They have this info already and shoving it on a card would change nothing other than giving people a more ready form to prove who they are.
There's also no need for one giant database of all your data. You get the ID card from some agency entitled to give it to you (city where you live, for instance). The card has basic info on it to prove you are who you say you are (picture, full name, DoB, social security number, maybe address).
Every other entity you interact with using the card only has the information on the card, plus whatever extra information you choose to give them in order to do whatever business you're doing with them in their own database (ie, a bank will have your account number with them, but not your medical history and vice versa for medical people, police will be able to call up your criminal record if any from their dartabase, etc).
Most of these agencies already have the database anyway. Having it accessible yourself through your ID card only expedites the process and actually gives you more control over who has access to what.
No need to imagine an ID card as the start of 1984. That's at best a poorly thought out hyperbole.
I think the decision ought to be taken on practical grounds.
Jingoism?
Freedom and liberty is the birth right of every man, woman, and child in this nation.
We have a police force that seems to be able to do what it wants, a nation that has more CCTV cameras per head of population than places like North Korea, and a government building a vast database of information on its citizens.
And you're talking about practical grounds?
I see it on twitter, I see it on facebook and 100 other places and it never ceases to amaze me how much info people just voluntary hand over, without thinking of the consequences of their actions.
It's naïve, terribly naive to think that governments and multi-nationals are benevolent and cuddly things. They are not.
Government should be at the peole's feet, not its throat.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: People seem to be putting the cart before the horse here. They seem to be objecting to ID cards on the basis of cost and government incompetence with past IT schemes.
You should be objecting to them on the basic principal of liberty.
The government is our servant, not the other way around.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: The last iteration in the UK which cost a fortune and was scrapped almost immediately, involved a huge database of everything. I'm all for the cards as they do make life easier, but against the database because of governmental malice/incompetence.
Making life easier is exactly what they want.
The surrendering of liberty and freedom in a democracy is seldom done by armed men dragging you away in the middle of the night.
Rather, it's the people unwittingly being their own jailor.
As a historic example, the Gestapo wouldn't have been half as effective were it not for people voluntary surrending information on their neighbours.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Not really. And it would be nothing more than an extra driving licence. You wouldn't even give it a second thought once it was issued.
No disrespect, but it's that attitude that makes my blood boil...
Get over it. As has already been stated, the Government knows all your details and how you live your life already. National Insurance gives them all that and more. An ID would be nothing more than a consolidation of that info. Actually I'm going to go into a bit more detail here, as this junk about being your own jailor is pissing me off. I worked in banking, as I stated a page back and currently work in payroll. If I open my work laptop now, I can access 10's of thousands of peoples data in the UK. Everything from their financial history, addresses, spouses, P11D, P60, P45 history, everything in a few seconds. Now stop and think a moment. If I can access that in a few clicks, the Government has all that and more at their fingertips already. If you've ever worked, registered for a GP or anything official at all, the Government already has it and knows your history and can quite easily evaluate you. All this junk about liberty, being your own jailor etc is junk. They have this info already and shoving it on a card would change nothing other than giving people a more ready form to prove who they are.
Not a personal attack on you, but the fact that somebody like you could have access to that kind of information should scare the gak out of everybody.
ID cards are a symbol, a symbol of the yoke the government has been itching to put us under for years.
The last time we had ID cards, the war, resulted in them quickly being ditched as soon as the shooting stopped.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bran Dawri wrote: There's also no need for one giant database of all your data. You get the ID card from some agency entitled to give it to you (city where you live, for instance). The card has basic info on it to prove you are who you say you are (picture, full name, DoB, social security number, maybe address).
Every other entity you interact with using the card only has the information on the card, plus whatever extra information you choose to give them in order to do whatever business you're doing with them in their own database (ie, a bank will have your account number with them, but not your medical history and vice versa for medical people, police will be able to call up your criminal record if any from their dartabase, etc).
Most of these agencies already have the database anyway. Having it accessible yourself through your ID card only expedites the process and actually gives you more control over who has access to what.
No need to imagine an ID card as the start of 1984. That's at best a poorly thought out hyperbole.
The road to hell is always paved with good intentions...
tneva82 wrote: Small card you can use unifiedly rather than having to mix&match other things which contains nothing new goverment doesn't already have. Yep. Reason to be suspicious.
Would make sense if it was with gps tracker or something but as it doesn#t it's just stupid
GPS is not the only way to track people's movements. As it stands the police can get a decent track of your movements from your use of a mobile phone, credit and debit cards and so forth. However there are checks and balances and they need to apply to get that information.
A *mandatory* ID card scheme places all your details on a national register. To be useful such an ID card scheme needs to be linked to the database for them to be validated (otherwise it is just a glorified student ID card as there is no real way of actively check them). In such a circumstance you then have a continuous stream of data of individuals and the populace's movements. That's an incredibly powerful weapon for both information and manipulation - we only have to look at the issues with Facebook, the Wrexit and Trump campaign etc, to see just how valuable that information is. This is before you think about the value from selling such information (even partially). We already have a situation where they are asking doctors and teachers to perform home office duties. How long until it extends to having to provide such ID at hotels, B&Bs, purchasing train tickets, voting and so forth?
We should all have a right to anonymity and not have to worry that every major action is being recorded and that this can be exploited either on an individual or populace level.
I accept that it might help reduce the likelihood slightly of being affected by fraud (although if you are affected the impact might be higher in value). However I don't see that as a good reason to have mandatory collation of everyone's movements.
Umm. I have id card but you know what? It's used so little goverment can't really use it to track me. Credit card is better for that. Hell checking my facebook reveals more about what i do and where i am than my id card. Even this forum is better for tracking me than my id card! You seem to think police are asking people all the time the card to track but they don't.
What a bunch of fearmongering. Not having an ID card would have done nothing to stop the Gestapo, because the government already has all the personal information it needs to track you down unless you go off the grid in the name of 'freedom'. Your neighbours ratting you out has zero to do with an ID card either. You know what the Gestapo really did back when we had no ID cards? They just issued them and/or issued personalized ration cards, opened up municipal registers and found everything they needed (although the Gestapo and SD were pretty gak at their work by totalitarian state standards). Not having an ID card won't save you from Gestapo 2.0
ID cards are indeed a symbol, a symbol of how the people let its government operate. You really have to wonder what it says about the state of democracy if something as simplistic as an ID is a yoke of the government. Nothing that is on that card isn't already known and the information on it is very basic without any way to track its users. Its ridiculous hyperbole.
I think the decision ought to be taken on practical grounds.
Jingoism?
Freedom and liberty is the birth right of every man, woman, and child in this nation.
We have a police force that seems to be able to do what it wants, a nation that has more CCTV cameras per head of population than places like North Korea, and a government building a vast database of information on its citizens.
And you're talking about practical grounds?
I see it on twitter, I see it on facebook and 100 other places and it never ceases to amaze me how much info people just voluntary hand over, without thinking of the consequences of their actions.
It's naïve, terribly naive to think that governments and multi-nationals are benevolent and cuddly things. They are not.
Government should be at the peole's feet, not its throat.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: People seem to be putting the cart before the horse here. They seem to be objecting to ID cards on the basis of cost and government incompetence with past IT schemes.
You should be objecting to them on the basic principal of liberty.
The government is our servant, not the other way around.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: The last iteration in the UK which cost a fortune and was scrapped almost immediately, involved a huge database of everything. I'm all for the cards as they do make life easier, but against the database because of governmental malice/incompetence.
Making life easier is exactly what they want.
The surrendering of liberty and freedom in a democracy is seldom done by armed men dragging you away in the middle of the night.
Rather, it's the people unwittingly being their own jailor.
As a historic example, the Gestapo wouldn't have been half as effective were it not for people voluntary surrending information on their neighbours.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Not really. And it would be nothing more than an extra driving licence. You wouldn't even give it a second thought once it was issued.
No disrespect, but it's that attitude that makes my blood boil...
Get over it. As has already been stated, the Government knows all your details and how you live your life already. National Insurance gives them all that and more. An ID would be nothing more than a consolidation of that info. Actually I'm going to go into a bit more detail here, as this junk about being your own jailor is pissing me off. I worked in banking, as I stated a page back and currently work in payroll. If I open my work laptop now, I can access 10's of thousands of peoples data in the UK. Everything from their financial history, addresses, spouses, P11D, P60, P45 history, everything in a few seconds. Now stop and think a moment. If I can access that in a few clicks, the Government has all that and more at their fingertips already. If you've ever worked, registered for a GP or anything official at all, the Government already has it and knows your history and can quite easily evaluate you. All this junk about liberty, being your own jailor etc is junk. They have this info already and shoving it on a card would change nothing other than giving people a more ready form to prove who they are.
Not a personal attack on you, but the fact that somebody like you could have access to that kind of information should scare the gak out of everybody.
ID cards are a symbol, a symbol of the yoke the government has been itching to put us under for years.
The last time we had ID cards, the war, resulted in them quickly being ditched as soon as the shooting stopped.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bran Dawri wrote: There's also no need for one giant database of all your data. You get the ID card from some agency entitled to give it to you (city where you live, for instance). The card has basic info on it to prove you are who you say you are (picture, full name, DoB, social security number, maybe address).
Every other entity you interact with using the card only has the information on the card, plus whatever extra information you choose to give them in order to do whatever business you're doing with them in their own database (ie, a bank will have your account number with them, but not your medical history and vice versa for medical people, police will be able to call up your criminal record if any from their dartabase, etc).
Most of these agencies already have the database anyway. Having it accessible yourself through your ID card only expedites the process and actually gives you more control over who has access to what.
No need to imagine an ID card as the start of 1984. That's at best a poorly thought out hyperbole.
The road to hell is always paved with good intentions...
Eugh...I wonder if you actually live in the real world? Or at least think about what you say? How do you think the world would function if this information wasn't available?
I'll admit that the siren call of sacrificing liberty and freedom in return for ease of life and order, is always a hard voice to resist. History proves that.
It's 80 years since the Holocaust, and 30 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union and East Germany.
Are people naive to think that human nature has changed in that time? Or that power doesn't corrupt?
We're moving towards a cashless society, vast databases of information on people, and possibly the government doling out money to people via a citizen's income.
So person X's only form of income is a citizen's income. Person X criticises government policy.
Government pulls the plug on his money. Conform or starve...
That is not beyond the realms of possibility...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: What a bunch of fearmongering. Not having an ID card would have done nothing to stop the Gestapo, because the government already has all the personal information it needs to track you down unless you go off the grid in the name of 'freedom'. Your neighbours ratting you out has zero to do with an ID card either. You know what the Gestapo really did back when we had no ID cards? They just issued them and/or issued personalized ration cards, opened up municipal registers and found everything they needed (although the Gestapo and SD were pretty gak at their work by totalitarian state standards). Not having an ID card won't save you from Gestapo 2.0
ID cards are indeed a symbol, a symbol of how the people let its government operate. You really have to wonder what it says about the state of democracy if something as simplistic as an ID is a yoke of the government. Nothing that is on that card isn't already known and the information on it is very basic without any way to track its users. Its ridiculous hyperbole.
One of the reasons why the Holocaust was so effective in your nation was the vast amounts of meticulous records the Dutch government had on its citizens...
When the Germans took over The Netherlands, they seized those records, and the rest is history...
Umm. I have id card but you know what? It's used so little goverment can't really use it to track me.
Then the point of having one is?
Credit card is better for that. Hell checking my facebook reveals more about what i do and where i am than my id card. Even this forum is better for tracking me than my id card! You seem to think police are asking people all the time the card to track but they don't.
In the UK (noting you are in Japan so am unsure whether you are referencing a Japanese system I am unaware of) if the police wanted access to this information they would need to get a court order (probably not the correct wording but the principle stands). The government can't just track you through your use of the credit card otherwise.
I'll repeat what I said earlier:-
If you have a mandatory ID system that requires a link to a central database then there is a large amount of data on your activities specifically and as the populace. Unlike the credit card scenario you have no rights to protect that information as the government system has already gathered and you have given tacit approval for that data to be gathered. If your bank wanted to hand out the information you have a right for them not to and effectively anonymise you.
There is no reason for a central government to gather all your personal information and provide a system where they can track you 'day to day' activities whether that is to buy a mortgage or open a bank account. Every other system is not linked in that fundamental way. There are other registers of your details (tax, passport, voting register). But none of these are linked and more importantly none of these allow a government body to track on the large scale the movements of its population.
Oh my good God, do you want me to fold your tinfoil hat for you?? And what cashless society?? We can't even get rid of junky old savings books or cheques yet despite trying. Cash is not going anywhere for decades if not longer, if ever. I'm done, I can't have a serious argument with a conspiracy nut.
Umm. I have id card but you know what? It's used so little goverment can't really use it to track me.
Then the point of having one is?
Credit card is better for that. Hell checking my facebook reveals more about what i do and where i am than my id card. Even this forum is better for tracking me than my id card! You seem to think police are asking people all the time the card to track but they don't.
In the UK (noting you are in Japan so am unsure whether you are referencing a Japanese system I am unaware of) if the police wanted access to this information they would need to get a court order (probably not the correct wording but the principle stands). The government can't just track you through your use of the credit card otherwise.
I'll repeat what I said earlier:-
If you have a mandatory ID system that requires a link to a central database then there is a large amount of data on your activities specifically and as the populace. Unlike the credit card scenario you have no rights to protect that information as the government system has already gathered and you have given tacit approval for that data to be gathered. If your bank wanted to hand out the information you have a right for them not to and effectively anonymise you.
There is no reason for a central government to gather all your personal information and provide a system where they can track you 'day to day' activities whether that is to buy a mortgage or open a bank account. Every other system is not linked in that fundamental way. There are other registers of your details (tax, passport, voting register). But none of these are linked and more importantly none of these allow a government body to track on the large scale the movements of its population.
Yes they can. In fact it's a security feature to make sure your credit card isn't being used fraudulently. Banks will track usage and pull out any unusual transactions and usually call you to confirm it was you who made the transaction. They may have to get the order, but that wouldn't be hard for them if they had reasonable reason too.
So person X's only form of income is a citizen's income. Person X criticises government policy.
Government pulls the plug on his money. Conform or starve...
That is not beyond the realms of possibility...
It would probably me more along the lines of restricting Universal credit etc by not meeting certain conditions (e.g. the depressed and mentally unwell, unemployed, person being forced to go to the job centre every day etc.) and tracking that 'movement'
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Oh my good God, do you want me to fold your tinfoil hat for you?? And what cashless society?? We can't even get rid of junky old savings books or cheques yet despite trying. Cash is not going anywhere for decades if not longer, if ever. I'm done, I can't have a serious argument with a conspiracy nut.
Banks are actively shutting down branches and pushing people towards digital banking.
These are well known facts.
The amount of people paying by card over cash is rising year after year. Again, a well known fact.
My claim that we are moving towards a cashless society is based on hard facts.
I present hard facts, and yet, I'm the tinfoil hat wearer...
Right...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: No he doesn't live in same world. Plus he's aiming for uk to burn with wrexit to boot. The more it burns the better.
When did I ever say I wanted the UK to burn? I have never said that.
Even the most pro-Remain supporters on this thread have never accused me of that.
So person X's only form of income is a citizen's income. Person X criticises government policy.
Government pulls the plug on his money. Conform or starve...
That is not beyond the realms of possibility...
It would probably me more along the lines of restricting Universal credit etc by not meeting certain conditions (e.g. the depressed and mentally unwell, unemployed, person being forced to go to the job centre every day etc.) and tracking that 'movement'
I had forgotten about Universal Credit and all the suffering it had caused. The stories we hear are horrendous. IMO, that is only the beginning.
Yes they can. In fact it's a security feature to make sure your credit card isn't being used fraudulently. Banks will track usage and pull out any unusual transactions and usually call you to confirm it was you who made the transaction. They may have to get the order, but that wouldn't be hard for them if they had reasonable reason too.
The banks tracking unusual trnasactions is not the government tracking your activities however. You've already noted that they can report this to the police and that an order can be obtained. However that is on the pretext of individual suspicious behaviour and that your rights are considered when a request to investigate is undertaken. The government does not have access to all those transactions (unless all French banks are owned by the government?)
My claim that we are moving towards a cashless society is based on hard facts.
We are, slowly and partially. Because it's so much more convenient (and often cheaper) than cash. It's great for tracking but that's not why it's happening or any way to force us to become 100% cashless.
When did I ever say I wanted the UK to burn? I have never said that.
Even the most pro-Remain supporters on this thread have never accused me of that.
You've said you're happy for the UK to go back to the stone age if it gets us away from the EU. That's more or less the same thing,
So I'll say it; you want the UK to burn for purely ideological reasons, and that your stance on ID cards is barely purely on emotion and paranoia rather than reality and practicality.
An ID card would make my life easier, without infringing on, well, anything.
Last reply, as I have to go to a meeting about GDPR. You know, that EU ruling that protects personal data.
They're pushing people towards digital data because it's safer and more efficient. You suffer fraud online, you can get your money back. You get mugged for cash, you might get some pity and that's it.
Banks and the Government have been pushing for cashless for years and yet we haven't even gotten ridden of our copper pieces yet. As I said earlier there was such an outrage over the idea of getting rid of cheques and even saving books the idea was pulled. The people I know in the industry would kill to get rid of cash. It would make their jobs so much easier. But cash won't go, because so many are resistant to change. Your facts are based on third party reporting, mine are from inside the industry.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'll admit that the siren call of sacrificing liberty and freedom in return for ease of life and order, is always a hard voice to resist. History proves that.
It's 80 years since the Holocaust, and 30 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union and East Germany.
Are people naive to think that human nature has changed in that time? Or that power doesn't corrupt?
We're moving towards a cashless society, vast databases of information on people, and possibly the government doling out money to people via a citizen's income.
So person X's only form of income is a citizen's income. Person X criticises government policy.
Government pulls the plug on his money. Conform or starve...
That is not beyond the realms of possibility...
Which can already easily happen without the piece of plastic. To pretend that the ID card is what separates us from totalitarianism is hopelessly naive. A bank decides to block your account today? Hopefully you have another one until they sort it out and you can access your money again. A utility company thinks mistakenly you're behind on payments? Enjoy living without power for a few days.
Again, if you're so worried about your freedom and being tracked the best thing you can do now is shut off your computer, cancel your internet, sell your house and go live in the hills with some subsistence farming. Almost everything you use can be far better employed to track you than an ID card which has data on it the government already has anyway.
Disciple of Fate wrote: What a bunch of fearmongering. Not having an ID card would have done nothing to stop the Gestapo, because the government already has all the personal information it needs to track you down unless you go off the grid in the name of 'freedom'. Your neighbours ratting you out has zero to do with an ID card either. You know what the Gestapo really did back when we had no ID cards? They just issued them and/or issued personalized ration cards, opened up municipal registers and found everything they needed (although the Gestapo and SD were pretty gak at their work by totalitarian state standards). Not having an ID card won't save you from Gestapo 2.0
ID cards are indeed a symbol, a symbol of how the people let its government operate. You really have to wonder what it says about the state of democracy if something as simplistic as an ID is a yoke of the government. Nothing that is on that card isn't already known and the information on it is very basic without any way to track its users. Its ridiculous hyperbole.
One of the reasons why the Holocaust was so effective in your nation was the vast amounts of meticulous records the Dutch government had on its citizens...
When the Germans took over The Netherlands, they seized those records, and the rest is history...
Good, so if you know your history then you know an ID card has zero influence in the outcome. And why not having an ID card won't save you the next time totalitarianism raises its head.
And that wasn't why it was so effective in the Netherlands, what made it so effective was the people keeping those records and the police helping the Germans exploit that information. Other countries had good records as well, but the Germans simply didn't have the manpower without local cooperation. It also didn't help the Germans instituted a German civil government (with Nazi over military priorities) instead of military occupation like in Belgium or France, the fact that the Dutch Jewish population was for the most part concentrated in Amsterdam and that our country is gak for hiding in, its almost only flat fields in the most populated parts.
Yes they can. In fact it's a security feature to make sure your credit card isn't being used fraudulently. Banks will track usage and pull out any unusual transactions and usually call you to confirm it was you who made the transaction. They may have to get the order, but that wouldn't be hard for them if they had reasonable reason too.
The banks tracking unusual trnasactions is not the government tracking your activities however. You've already noted that they can report this to the police and that an order can be obtained. However that is on the pretext of individual suspicious behaviour and that your rights are considered when a request to investigate is undertaken. The government does not have access to all those transactions (unless all French banks are owned by the government?)
I'm in the UK actually (currently anyway). And you're assuming that there wouldn't be some safeguards in place that would prevent the Government from using tracking without some sort of court order if a integrated national database was created.
Mighty plastic card indeed. Just by piece of plastic with zero data goverment doesn't already have you lose all your freedom! The horror!
If you are so worried about freedom against goverment why you would be crazy enough to be here chatting about that? Internet is infinently bigger danger for that than id card
I'm in the UK actually (currently anyway). And you're assuming that there wouldn't be some safeguards in place that would prevent the Government from using tracking without some sort of court order if a integrated national database was created.
You don't need an order to access information you already have (the bank doesn't need an order to monitor suspicious activities does it?). Of course it would help if we were safe guarded by the ECHR and ECJ but the Tory government want to get out of that and set up a new bill of rights (which we haven't heard anything further on).
I still haven't seen any good, evidence based, reason why ID cards are necessary. The suggestion is that it makes you less susceptiple to fraud (by about 50%) but when it does happen the amount taken is much higher (so financially overall it's a much worse situation).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: Mighty plastic card indeed. Just by piece of plastic with zero data goverment doesn't already have you lose all your freedom! The horror!
If you are so worried about freedom against goverment why you would be crazy enough to be here chatting about that? Internet is infinently bigger danger for that than id card
Because that is my choice as to when and where I am anonymous? That is the whole point of civilian rights, to allow you to have the option as to how you present yourself to the world.
FYI, you're not anonymous on here. It would be quite easy to find your data if anyone was really interested on finding out.
But a national database wouldn't be the Governments data. If the plan was set up, safeguards of some sort would have to be set in place, this is only a natural part of the procedure.
tneva82 wrote: Mighty plastic card indeed. Just by piece of plastic with zero data goverment doesn't already have you lose all your freedom! The horror!
If you are so worried about freedom against goverment why you would be crazy enough to be here chatting about that? Internet is infinently bigger danger for that than id card
Because that is my choice as to when and where I am anonymous? That is the whole point of civilian rights, to allow you to have the option as to how you present yourself to the world.
Again, how does an ID card enable the government to know where you are if they can't ask you for it unless you have done something wrong which would already result in the police identifying you. Its not a carrying duty. There is no way to track an ID card.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: FYI, you're not anonymous on here. It would be quite easy to find your data if anyone was really interested on finding out.
I didn't say I was anonymous on this forum...what I said was that I get to choose where and when I am anonymous. If I'm buying a mortgage for example then it isn't the government's right to know how that has happened and when. That is between myself and the bank and so forth.
But a national database wouldn't be the Governments data. If the plan was set up, safeguards of some sort would have to be set in place, this is only a natural part of the procedure.
Are you saying that the 'government' doesn't have access to the tax data that is submitted and that they don't use that information? This comments seems to be more hopeful thinking than anything. Surely the safest safeguards is not to have that database in the first place?
Again, how does an ID card enable the government to know where you are if they can't ask you for it unless you have done something wrong which would already result in the police identifying you. Its not a carrying duty. There is no way to track an ID card.
If you have a mandatory system that requires a check of that information then the database will log that access (whom, when, where, for what etc). That gives an awful lot of information, accessing a database is a two way stream of data, not one. If you just want a picture post card then that isn't particularly worth anything as there is no way to validate that ID. Most people will only see all but the most obvious issues with a forgery (ask yourself when was the last time you checked what a real £10 note should look like and what all the details are?)
Id card has nothing new goverment already doesn't have. Thus if you are worried about your anonymity as reason for opposing id card YOU HAVE ALREADY LOST! Goverment has all you were worried about already. Your precious anomity is already gone. Poof. No more there. Probaly from the moment you were born from.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Oh my good God, do you want me to fold your tinfoil hat for you?? And what cashless society?? We can't even get rid of junky old savings books or cheques yet despite trying. Cash is not going anywhere for decades if not longer, if ever. I'm done, I can't have a serious argument with a conspiracy nut.
Small organisations need cheques - getting rid of them just causes them more problems as they have difficulty with credit cards. Its good for the big organisations and banks not so good for little ones. its like automation which is destroying jobs especially low wage/first jobs and leaving nothing in exchange for those trying to enter the job market..
My local supermarket is phasing out tills in favour of auto checkouts, more jobs gone, lost customer service desk, banks are going the same way.
Cash is much better for me - I take money out as i need it - when its gon its gone so getting into debt is much harder but getting into debt is what the same banks nad large organisations want..
tneva82 wrote: Mighty plastic card indeed. Just by piece of plastic with zero data goverment doesn't already have you lose all your freedom! The horror!
If you are so worried about freedom against goverment why you would be crazy enough to be here chatting about that? Internet is infinently bigger danger for that than id card
Because that is my choice as to when and where I am anonymous? That is the whole point of civilian rights, to allow you to have the option as to how you present yourself to the world.
Again, how does an ID card enable the government to know where you are if they can't ask you for it unless you have done something wrong which would already result in the police identifying you. Its not a carrying duty. There is no way to track an ID card.
The "Nothing to hide nothing to fear" argument has been proven wrong time and again. Just look at the number of stop and search's that result in nothing. The police could very much stop and ask you to show your ID.
Lets look at it the other way, what is the advantage for the huge implementation cost? What advantage does it have over a passport or drivers licence as a form of ID?
Again, how does an ID card enable the government to know where you are if they can't ask you for it unless you have done something wrong which would already result in the police identifying you. Its not a carrying duty. There is no way to track an ID card.
If you have a mandatory system that requires a check of that information then the database will log that access (whom, when, where, for what etc). That gives an awful lot of information, accessing a database is a two way stream of data, not one. If you just want a picture post card then that isn't particularly worth anything as there is no way to validate that ID. Most people will only see all but the most obvious issues with a forgery (ask yourself when was the last time you checked what a real £10 note should look like and what all the details are?)
But where they check it is already government associated, they already had that info on file even before we introduced the ID card system. Saying the above gives an awful lot of information when that check is preformed by a government connected institution anyway is meaningless, they could track you just as easily without the card if they wanted to, unless you start lying about who you are. Plus it isn't standard procedure to look you up in the government database, they don't have that access for normal employees, its just veryfying your identity. Private business can't access that database regardless.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Oh my good God, do you want me to fold your tinfoil hat for you?? And what cashless society?? We can't even get rid of junky old savings books or cheques yet despite trying. Cash is not going anywhere for decades if not longer, if ever. I'm done, I can't have a serious argument with a conspiracy nut.
Small organisations need cheques - getting rid of them just causes them more problems as they have difficulty with credit cards.
No they don't. No company needs to use cheques now. They only ones that keep cheques do it because of ludditeism.
tneva82 wrote: Mighty plastic card indeed. Just by piece of plastic with zero data goverment doesn't already have you lose all your freedom! The horror!
If you are so worried about freedom against goverment why you would be crazy enough to be here chatting about that? Internet is infinently bigger danger for that than id card
Because that is my choice as to when and where I am anonymous? That is the whole point of civilian rights, to allow you to have the option as to how you present yourself to the world.
Again, how does an ID card enable the government to know where you are if they can't ask you for it unless you have done something wrong which would already result in the police identifying you. Its not a carrying duty. There is no way to track an ID card.
The "Nothing to hide nothing to fear" argument has been proven wrong time and again. Just look at the number of stop and search's that result in nothing. The police could very much stop and ask you to show your ID.
Lets look at it the other way, what is the advantage for the huge implementation cost? What advantage does it have over a passport or drivers licence as a form of ID?
So rather than id card police will ask some other form of identification.
Benefit is not having to carry tons of different identification methods. One for some use, another yet another, third still more...i presume you have heard term standards? Rather handy thing allowing one be used rather than having tons of different things for same thing. Allows things like watching different tv channels with same tv. Rather than pay for 10 things you could pay just for 1 for more convenience while not giving goverment anything they don#t already have
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Oh my good God, do you want me to fold your tinfoil hat for you?? And what cashless society?? We can't even get rid of junky old savings books or cheques yet despite trying. Cash is not going anywhere for decades if not longer, if ever. I'm done, I can't have a serious argument with a conspiracy nut.
Small organisations need cheques - getting rid of them just causes them more problems as they have difficulty with credit cards.
No they don't. No company needs to use cheques now. They only ones that keep cheques do it because of ludditeism.
I am not talking about companies but charities, small violunteer organisations and the like which I deal with.
Good for the bank does not automatically meen good for the indivudal - in fact often the opposite.
Benefit is not having to carry tons of different identification methods.
On the rare occassion I need any from of ID I just use my drivers licence - never needed anything else - why do I need another card in my wallet and yet another cost to us taxpayers
Last reply, as I have to go to a meeting about GDPR. You know, that EU ruling that protects personal data.
GDPR - yeah that thing - So much much time and effort has been wasted on that thing recently at work - total PITA.
The "Nothing to hide nothing to fear" argument has been proven wrong time and again. Just look at the number of stop and search's that result in nothing. The police could very much stop and ask you to show your ID.
Lets look at it the other way, what is the advantage for the huge implementation cost? What advantage does it have over a passport or drivers licence as a form of ID?
Passports are optional as are Driving licences. In fact you can go your whole life without ever driving (and many people in big urban areas do). Furthermore you are not required to carry either with you at all times; and indeed the high black market value of a UK passport means many advise you not to carry it unless required/you have too.
If you never go abroad you could well get away without a passport and many lower level jobs don't require lots of ID proof to get employed and if you're self employed you won't need them either.
A mandatory ID card would be, well, mandatory and not optional; its not tied to anything, but proving ID and who you are. It's not just having a bit of card with your name on; but also a legal and cultural shift in attitudes as it would steadily enable police/authorities to request/demand to see your ID not just ask you your details.
It would also like come with a requirement to update your address every time you move and your contact details as well; so it would be a running record of where you've lived and contact points for you.
Also on the subject of cheques a lot of self employed people still take them. Those in the countryside also make use of them as its much easier than having to go all the way into town to draw out money to pay a repair bill or gardener (self employed). Until the digital age brings 100% free card payments to every single mobile phone chances are the cheque will still exist. Even then it will still linger around for a long while; but it will steadily become more of a pain to use.
Already with many bank branches closing its more of a pain; though thankfully ou can still get them processed in the post office (takes longer though)
tneva82 wrote: Mighty plastic card indeed. Just by piece of plastic with zero data goverment doesn't already have you lose all your freedom! The horror!
If you are so worried about freedom against goverment why you would be crazy enough to be here chatting about that? Internet is infinently bigger danger for that than id card
Because that is my choice as to when and where I am anonymous? That is the whole point of civilian rights, to allow you to have the option as to how you present yourself to the world.
Again, how does an ID card enable the government to know where you are if they can't ask you for it unless you have done something wrong which would already result in the police identifying you. Its not a carrying duty. There is no way to track an ID card.
The "Nothing to hide nothing to fear" argument has been proven wrong time and again. Just look at the number of stop and search's that result in nothing. The police could very much stop and ask you to show your ID.
Lets look at it the other way, what is the advantage for the huge implementation cost? What advantage does it have over a passport or drivers licence as a form of ID?
No they can't, again they aren't allowed by law to ask you that, identification duty, not carrying one.
And my passport is my ID! An ID card is just a cheaper option if you don't want a passport.
Convincing arqument against id card claiming police would do something that's specifically forbidden by law. And before somebody claims law can be changed for tyranny...well yes they can but id card doesn#t allow it. They could just as well change it so police can put you on jail just for fun. If goverment wants to get nasty id card neither helps nor opposes that. It has same data goverment has and if goverment wants you to identify then you identify yourself one way or another. Or if goverment is dictatorship some people here fears they just jail you id card or not
To change the form of today's mutual incomprehension between the UK and continental Europe, the latest wheeze emerging from the government is a blind Brexit.
Robert Peston, ITN wrote:My understanding is that one of the Brexit campaign’s two big beasts, the environment secretary Michael Gove, has arrived at the perhaps startling view that the least worst option now is what some are styling “a blind Brexit”.
This would be to recognise that parliament is too divided and too much time has already been wasted for a detailed plan for our future relationship with the EU to be negotiated and agreed in time for the summits in October or December.
Instead the withdrawal agreement - which formalises a default plan to keep open the Northern Ireland border and around £40bn of divorce payments by the UK - would be ratified by EU leaders, together with the highest level guiding principles for the UK’s future relationship with the EU.
In other words, we would leave the EU not having a clue whether Brexit would ultimately involve membership of the single market like Norway, or the customs union like Turkey, or associate status like Ukraine or having a Canadian style free trade agreement.
To repeat, Brexit on 29 March 2019 would be blind.
Cunningly this means that both the UK and EU can keep all their mutually incompatible red-lines intact. More importantly it means that the Tory party can avoid a showdown between its Leave and Remain wings until after Brexit is a done deal. The economy may not be so rosy after at least another year of uncertainty, and politics will remain hellish, but it keeps everything just short of an actual crisis.
And my passport is my ID! An ID card is just a cheaper option if you don't want a passport.
I dont have or need a passport.
I don't need an ID card - if I have to use something my driving licence has always done - no extra cost either directly to me or another vastly expensive government project.
tneva82 wrote: Mighty plastic card indeed. Just by piece of plastic with zero data goverment doesn't already have you lose all your freedom! The horror!
If you are so worried about freedom against goverment why you would be crazy enough to be here chatting about that? Internet is infinently bigger danger for that than id card
Because that is my choice as to when and where I am anonymous? That is the whole point of civilian rights, to allow you to have the option as to how you present yourself to the world.
Again, how does an ID card enable the government to know where you are if they can't ask you for it unless you have done something wrong which would already result in the police identifying you. Its not a carrying duty. There is no way to track an ID card.
The "Nothing to hide nothing to fear" argument has been proven wrong time and again. Just look at the number of stop and search's that result in nothing. The police could very much stop and ask you to show your ID.
Lets look at it the other way, what is the advantage for the huge implementation cost? What advantage does it have over a passport or drivers licence as a form of ID?
They could not just stop you. The police can only stop you if they have a valid reason (that means only if you do something wrong), if they stop you without a valid reason they are violating the law and could get fired.
So let's say the police want to give you a fine. How do you prove your identity to them if you don't have a passport or driving license, and if you don't have an ID card either?
And for the last time, nobody could use an ID card to track you! It would be impossible. If you really are so paranoid about being tracked, you should throw away your mobile phone, computer and all other electronic equipment right now, because that can actually be used to track you, and it is in fact likely that you are being tracked through your mobile phone right as we speak (say thanks to Google and Apple for that).
I personally have always been against ID cards on the basis that the minute a country has them; laws mandating their production on demand appear five seconds later. If you go to Germany, to France, to wherever; the police can demand that you show them your ID card. If you cannot or refuse to do so, they can then take you on a little trip down to the police station. Inevitably, this ends up being a nice little way police can use to try and deter political 'undesirables' or round up tramps and immigrants. Not to mention the inevitable power thirsty little officials (there's always a goodly number in any country) who try and use it as a way of wielding power for slightly sadistic fun or exercising basic discrimination against people.
You can argue that all these sorts of abuses I mentioned can be deterred by just carrying your ID at all times I suppose; but I personally thoroughly resent and oppose the concept that I should have to carry a bit of plastic or be liable for arrest. As an independent citizen of my country, I hold firm to the belief that who I am, where I'm going, and what I'm doing is entirely my own business and nothing to do with the government (or any of their employees) outside of very specific scenarios. The state is the servant of the people, and not their master.
As an example several years back, a police car stopped by me and some friends and queried what we were up to. I asked them why they were curious, and they responded that they'd heard of a group very roughly fitting our description committing a crime several streets over a few hours prior. We then politely chose to give them a sketchy outline of our movements, and the policemen nodded, thanked us, and carried on their way. No ID was demanded, I had the ability to clarify what the officers were after before choosing to answer, and everyone got along famously. To my mind, that's how things should be.
tneva82 wrote: Mighty plastic card indeed. Just by piece of plastic with zero data goverment doesn't already have you lose all your freedom! The horror!
If you are so worried about freedom against goverment why you would be crazy enough to be here chatting about that? Internet is infinently bigger danger for that than id card
Because that is my choice as to when and where I am anonymous? That is the whole point of civilian rights, to allow you to have the option as to how you present yourself to the world.
Again, how does an ID card enable the government to know where you are if they can't ask you for it unless you have done something wrong which would already result in the police identifying you. Its not a carrying duty. There is no way to track an ID card.
The "Nothing to hide nothing to fear" argument has been proven wrong time and again. Just look at the number of stop and search's that result in nothing. The police could very much stop and ask you to show your ID.
Lets look at it the other way, what is the advantage for the huge implementation cost? What advantage does it have over a passport or drivers licence as a form of ID?
I do think there is a valid point here.
If the police were given the right to stop and ask you for your national ID card, you can bet a lot more "not properly British" people woold be stopped for "wearing loud tie in built-up area" and the like. THis would create the same kind of racial tension as the "suss" laws.
However, it would not be necessary to do this. The ID card could be required to be produced only on occasions such as the ones when we currently have to produce valid ID -- renting a flat, joining a new job, and so on.
Having said that, the only reason for these occasions of presenting ID is the "hostile environment" on immigrants.
Sorry. I have lived in finland 36 years and randomly i have been asked to show drivers licence once in my life.
The minute as well. Anybody claiming that is living in a fantasy world
And any goverment who would do that could just as well randomly demand prove your identity one way or another or straight to jail. Id card or lack of it doesn't help or prevent draconian goverment
And my passport is my ID! An ID card is just a cheaper option if you don't want a passport.
I dont have or need a passport.
I don't need an ID card - if I have to use something my driving licence has always done - no extra cost either directly to me or another vastly expensive government project.
Sure, but some people have neither a driving license or a passport, an ID card fills that gap and the government here in some cases doesn't accept driving licenses as a valid ID. Frequently in relation to social benefits, taxes or re-requesting your citizen code.
I didn't say I was anonymous on this forum...what I said was that I get to choose where and when I am anonymous. If I'm buying a mortgage for example then it isn't the government's right to know how that has happened and when. That is between myself and the bank and so forth.
This is legitimately a hilarious response!
Even if only because it implies you think that the government would not get to know about your mortgage. Now I am not entirely certain about the british system, but I'dd wager the government gets to know at least: when you bought your mortgage, what you used for colleteral (particularly if said colleteral happens to be a house or some other form of real estate, though planes and ships could also be used), how high your mortgage is, and at which bank you bought said mortgage. So do tell, how exactly do you think you'll be anonymous when buying a mortgage? Short of wearing a Guy Fawkes mask during the entire process, of course.
Ketara wrote: I personally have always been against ID cards on the basis that the minute a country has them; laws mandating their production on demand appear five seconds later. If you go to Germany, to France, to wherever; the police can demand that you show them your ID card.
IDK your experience but in Germany they can't demand it either, there is no legal obligation, its an identification requirement, not a carrying one. Afaik France is the same. What you describe is an abuse of power which has nothing to do with ID. What you use to start of a description of abuse of power is already abuse itself.
Ketara wrote: I personally have always been against ID cards on the basis that the minute a country has them; laws mandating their production on demand appear five seconds later. If you go to Germany, to France, to wherever; the police can demand that you show them your ID card.
IDK your experience but in Germany they can't demand it either, there is no legal obligation, its an identification requirement, not a carrying one. Afaik France is the same. What you describe is an abuse of power which has nothing to do with ID. What you use to start of a description of abuse of power is already abuse itself.
You're right; I wasn't specific enough. The police in Germany can demand official identification, which can be in the shape of a passport or ID card. And then insist on detaining you/accompanying you home to view it if you cannot produce either. So yes, the two are not necessarily intrinsically linked or mutually inclusive. You can produce a passport instead.
I think however, we can all identify the obvious link between a law mandating the identification of oneself upon demand, and a law mandating the allocation of a specific ID to every citizen.
Ketara wrote: I personally have always been against ID cards on the basis that the minute a country has them; laws mandating their production on demand appear five seconds later. If you go to Germany, to France, to wherever; the police can demand that you show them your ID card.
IDK your experience but in Germany they can't demand it either, there is no legal obligation, its an identification requirement, not a carrying one. Afaik France is the same. What you describe is an abuse of power which has nothing to do with ID. What you use to start of a description of abuse of power is already abuse itself.
You're right; I wasn't specific enough. The police in Germany can demand official identification, which can be in the shape of a passport or ID card. And then insist on detaining you/accompanying you home to view it if you cannot produce either. So yes, the two are not necessarily intrinsically linked or mutually inclusive. You can produce a passport instead.
I think however, we can all identify the obvious link between a law mandating the identification of oneself upon demand, and a law mandating the allocation of a specific ID to every citizen.
They can't demand it if you haven't done anything wrong, again what you describe is abuse of power and not how the German identification duty works. And in Germany the passport is also recognized as a valid ID. That's the way it works, you either get a passport or an ID card...
The obvious link that hasn't been made by the countries you named in question even though the systems have existed for over a decade? There are no laws that mandate you have to identify yourself on demand like that, its a mischaracterization of how the system works.
Sorry. I have lived in finland 36 years and randomly i have been asked to show drivers licence once in my life.
It must be nice to not appear suspicious for no reason or fault of your own. Sadly, not every person of colour has that pleasure.
Yes but then again id card plays zero part there. If goverment wants you to identify yourself you will do it. Brits have no means they prove yourself somehow? If not then what stops me from taking loan with your name?
Id provides draconian goverment nothing they didn't have before.
Automatically Appended Next Post: That coloured people can be subjected to random id check just as well without id card as with it. That issue has nothing to do with id card and all with abuse of power that lack of id card doesn't prevent
They can't demand it if you haven't done anything wrong, again what you describe is abuse of power and not how the German identification duty works. And in Germany the passport is also recognized as a valid ID. That's the way it works, you either get a passport or an ID card...
The German Act on Identity Cards and Electronic Identification (German: Personalausweisgesetz) requires all citizens over the age of 16 to be in possession of an identity card or passport and to be able to present this document to authorities on request, allowing for fines of up to 5000 € in cases of violations.[2] Except for specific circumstances, the act however does not demand carrying such a document at all times; in cases of suspicion of a crime and/or severe doubts as to the identity, police officials may temporarily apprehend persons or accompany them to their homes to produce the document there.
I could link more, but it's quite clear that ID laws can be used as a tool of racial discrimination in Germany. All that has to be done is to make up a 'suspicion', and then you can start hassling for ID, followed by arresting them if they can't produce it. I would wager good money that refusing to do so on liberal grounds that it's none of their business would almost guarantee such an outcome.
That coloured people can be subjected to random id check just as well without id card as with it. That issue has nothing to do with id card and all with abuse of power that lack of id card doesn't prevent
It rather does, actually. If a policeman in the UK wants to hassle a black teenager, he can't do it on the basis of a lack of ID. He can't use their lack of it as an additional basis for arrest either. I'll happily admit that it doesn't always stop these things; but it's one less tool in the arsenal of an official with a prejudice.
tneva82 wrote: Brits have no means they prove yourself somehow? If not then what stops me from taking loan with your name?
The police here have no right to demand I ID myself. They can request it, I can refuse it, and unless they have a genuine reason for thinking I'm about to/have committed a crime (specifically an arrestable offence as opposed to civil) and arrest me? There is nothing that they can do. To quote the .gov website
what your name is
what you’re doing in the area
where you’re going
You don’t have to stop or answer any questions. If you don’t and there’s no other reason to suspect you, then this alone can’t be used as a reason to search or arrest you.'
That doesn't do anything to back up the argument that they can just ask for your ID, even wikipedia specifies its an identification requirement. We have moved from "they can just demand it" to police will abuse the rules and be racist about it, which happens regardless of specific rules.
In both Germany and the Netherlands I can simply refuse to ID myself as well. Unless they have a genuine reason. This is no different, you seem to assume its a carrying requirement.
Disciple of Fate wrote: That doesn't do anything to back up the argument that they can just ask for your ID, even wikipedia specifies its an identification. We have moved from "they can just demand it" to police will abuse the rules and be racist about it, which happens regardless of specific rules.
Errr....Mate, I conceded at the top of this page that it was 'ID card or Passport'. Seriously, go look. I also acknowledged that those abuses can happen regardless, but also stated that it gives one less tool to those who would do so.
Given that not everybody owns a passport though (some people don't travel), a law requiring identification would be physically unable to function if it relied entirely upon passports. In other words, a law requiring people identify themselves on demand is unable to function without a 'National ID card' scheme (or a horse by any other name). By rejecting the law mandating I should have an ID card, I am thus able to reject any subsequent law (which most countries with ID cards inevitably slip in alongside the former) requiring I identify myself on demand by state officials.
Does that clear it up for you?
In both Germany and the Netherlands I can simply refuse to ID myself as well. Unless they have a genuine reason.
According to the link above, actually, you can't refuse in Germany. You don't get to decide what counts as a 'genuine reason'. You are legally obligated to present your ID, be it on the spot, or at your house. And if you do not, the police are able to count that against you as a reason to detain you further; whereas in Britain you are not legally obligated to produce it, and they cannot use your denial as an additional motivation for arrest.
Disciple of Fate wrote: That doesn't do anything to back up the argument that they can just ask for your ID, even wikipedia specifies its an identification requirement. We have moved from "they can just demand it" to police will abuse the rules and be racist about it, which happens regardless of specific rules.
In both Germany and the Netherlands I can simply refuse to ID myself as well. Unless they have a genuine reason.
But that's his point - police will abuse the rules and be racist about it, so surely the better option is to give them less rules to abuse. Also given the fact that police will abuse the rules, even a loosely worded "requirement" like the German one will, in practice, lead to lots of people carrying the ID cards at all times and producing them on-demand just to avoid the hassle, and once that precedent is established people who still refuse to do it even if perfectly within their legal rights to do so will be seen as "troublemakers".
Look at how the debate on online privacy has evolved over the years, where we're now at the point where merely expressing a preference to remain anonymous or pseudonymous because what you're doing online is nobody else's bloody business any more than what you're doing in the street or in your home is will have the tabloid crowd speculating you're a paedophile and the rabid end of identity politics advocates speculating you're a racist misogynist troll, with lots of people now firmly in the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mindset.
Even if only because it implies you think that the government would not get to know about your mortgage. Now I am not entirely certain about the british system, but I'dd wager the government gets to know at least: when you bought your mortgage, what you used for colleteral (particularly if said colleteral happens to be a house or some other form of real estate, though planes and ships could also be used), how high your mortgage is, and at which bank you bought said mortgage. So do tell, how exactly do you think you'll be anonymous when buying a mortgage? Short of wearing a Guy Fawkes mask during the entire process, of course.
No, the government doesn't find out about the individual details of a specific mortgage. They know how much is due in tax. The local government get to know your address for tax purposes, vote registration, bin collections etc. The land registry for who owns the land gets updated (but wouldn't apply for a flat for example). However the details of the specific mortgage aren't transferred to any UK government database. Overall statistics are collated and provided by the industry. I think there must be a fundamental difference in how it operates, because it all happens through estate agents, banks and legal firms. Please if you can find a UK government department that knows specifically everyone's mortgage details then I'm quite happy to stand corrected.
I have still to find any valid reason being argued for a national ID database. The argument seems to swing from it prevents fraud (but it still happens in those countries with IDs) to I've only ever been asked once for such an ID - which raises the question as to why you should log all a persons details as part of a mandatory registration if you only have to display it once in a lifetime?
They can't demand it if you haven't done anything wrong, again what you describe is abuse of power and not how the German identification duty works. And in Germany the passport is also recognized as a valid ID. That's the way it works, you either get a passport or an ID card...
The German Act on Identity Cards and Electronic Identification (German: Personalausweisgesetz) requires all citizens over the age of 16 to be in possession of an identity card or passport and to be able to present this document to authorities on request, allowing for fines of up to 5000 € in cases of violations.[2] Except for specific circumstances, the act however does not demand carrying such a document at all times; in cases of suspicion of a crime and/or severe doubts as to the identity, police officials may temporarily apprehend persons or accompany them to their homes to produce the document there.
I could link more, but it's quite clear that ID laws can be used as a tool of racial discrimination in Germany. All that has to be done is to make up a 'suspicion', and then you can start hassling for ID, followed by arresting them if they can't produce it. I would wager good money that refusing to do so on liberal grounds that it's none of their business would almost guarantee such an outcome.
That coloured people can be subjected to random id check just as well without id card as with it. That issue has nothing to do with id card and all with abuse of power that lack of id card doesn't prevent
It rather does, actually. If a policeman in the UK wants to hassle a black teenager, he can't do it on the basis of a lack of ID. He can't use their lack of it as an additional basis for arrest either. I'll happily admit that it doesn't always stop these things; but it's one less tool in the arsenal of an official with a prejudice.
tneva82 wrote: Brits have no means they prove yourself somehow? If not then what stops me from taking loan with your name?
The police here have no right to demand I ID myself. They can request it, I can refuse it, and unless they have a genuine reason for thinking I'm about to/have committed a crime and arrest me? There is nothing that they can do. To quote the .gov website
what your name is
what you’re doing in the area
where you’re going
You don’t have to stop or answer any questions. If you don’t and there’s no other reason to suspect you, then this alone can’t be used as a reason to search or arrest you.'
Okay, so your problem is that police officers in Germany stop people of colour? And exactly how is an ID a problem in that? A racist cop stops you, asks for ID, you show it and then the cop has no choice but to let you go. In the UK, this problem already exists in exactly the same way: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/oct/26/stop-and-search-eight-times-more-likely-to-target-black-people, except they can't ask you for an ID (but they can still ask for your personal details anyway and arrest you if you give false information, and if there are plenty of scenarios where you are obliged to stop and answer their questions (such as when you are driving a vehicle or they have a reasonable suspicion you are doing or have done something illegal). I don't see the problem with showing your ID to a cop. So now he knows what your name is and how old you are. So what? That is not sensitive information in any way. All there is on an ID card is information is mostly public knowledge already anyway. All that an ID card does is prove you are speaking the truth, just like a passport or driving license (which not everyone has) so that the cop doesn't have to take you to the police station to confirm your identity, which saves you ages of time and inconvenience.
Okay, so your problem is that police officers in Germany stop people of colour? And exactly how is an ID a problem in that?
You've got it literally the wrong way around.
My problem is that state officials have the ability to stop you and harass you on the pretext of checking for ID, and then count it against you if you refuse to/cannot produce it (going so far as to being able to arrest you as a result). And them having that power in turn means that they have an additional tool by which to hassle and detain people; be it because of colour, protesting for animal rights, or whatever.
As someone who believes my business and identity are my own, I see no reason for state officials, be they police or council workers, to be able to demand something of me. If there is a genuine suspicion that I have committed an arrestable offence, then arrest me. Otherwise, leave me be.
Disciple of Fate wrote: That doesn't do anything to back up the argument that they can just ask for your ID, even wikipedia specifies its an identification. We have moved from "they can just demand it" to police will abuse the rules and be racist about it, which happens regardless of specific rules.
Errr....Mate, I conceded at the top of this page that it was 'ID card or Passport'. Seriously, go look. I also acknowledged that those abuses can happen regardless, but also stated that it gives one less tool to those who would do so.
Given that not everybody owns a passport though (some people don't travel), a law requiring identification would be physically unable to function if it relied entirely upon passports. In other words, a law requiring people identify themselves on demand is unable to function without a 'National ID card' scheme (or a horse by any other name). By rejecting the law mandating I should have an ID card, I am thus able to reject any subsequent law (which most countries with ID cards inevitably slip in alongside the former) requiring I identify myself on demand by state officials.
Does that clear it up for you?
In both Germany and the Netherlands I can simply refuse to ID myself as well. Unless they have a genuine reason.
According to the link above, actually, you can't refuse in Germany. You don't get to decide what counts as a 'genuine reason'. You are legally obligated to present your ID, be it on the spot, or at your house. And if you do not, the police are able to count that against you as a reason to detain you further; whereas in Britain you are not legally obligated to produce it, and they cannot use your denial as an additional motivation for arrest.
But the issue is that demanding ID without reason works the same as in the UK. Its both the same step in abuse, then they can fine you on the continent in said abuse. But that is already against the law. The only thing an ID card adds is an illegal fine you can appeal against.
Of course, but in function passport and ID hold the exact same information. The passport just comes in the form of a booklet for when stamps are necesarry.
Again, the link states you can't refuse in case of genuine suspicion
Police checks are not allowed without grounds for suspicion.
Do you get to decide what counts as genuine suspicion for police in the UK? Demanding your ID based on racial profiling is abuse of power, hence the article on the student also having won his case. You're legally obligated, with genuine reason. The issue is when police are already abusing their power the can arrest you regardless ID law or not.
tneva82 wrote: Mighty plastic card indeed. Just by piece of plastic with zero data goverment doesn't already have you lose all your freedom! The horror!
If you are so worried about freedom against goverment why you would be crazy enough to be here chatting about that? Internet is infinently bigger danger for that than id card
Because that is my choice as to when and where I am anonymous? That is the whole point of civilian rights, to allow you to have the option as to how you present yourself to the world.
Again, how does an ID card enable the government to know where you are if they can't ask you for it unless you have done something wrong which would already result in the police identifying you. Its not a carrying duty. There is no way to track an ID card.
The "Nothing to hide nothing to fear" argument has been proven wrong time and again. Just look at the number of stop and search's that result in nothing. The police could very much stop and ask you to show your ID.
Lets look at it the other way, what is the advantage for the huge implementation cost? What advantage does it have over a passport or drivers licence as a form of ID?
No they can't, again they aren't allowed by law to ask you that, identification duty, not carrying one.
And my passport is my ID! An ID card is just a cheaper option if you don't want a passport.
tneva82 wrote: Convincing arqument against id card claiming police would do something that's specifically forbidden by law. And before somebody claims law can be changed for tyranny...well yes they can but id card doesn#t allow it. They could just as well change it so police can put you on jail just for fun. If goverment wants to get nasty id card neither helps nor opposes that. It has same data goverment has and if goverment wants you to identify then you identify yourself one way or another. Or if goverment is dictatorship some people here fears they just jail you id card or not
Sorry. I have lived in finland 36 years and randomly i have been asked to show drivers licence once in my life.
The minute as well. Anybody claiming that is living in a fantasy world
And any goverment who would do that could just as well randomly demand prove your identity one way or another or straight to jail. Id card or lack of it doesn't help or prevent draconian goverment
As I say, stop and search is only allowed on the basis of there being the same good reasons. In theory this is supposed to be when there is suspicion of a crime. It is a running joke (as Killkrazy says) of the police stopping people for "looking black in a built up area" and the like. Now what would happen to every black teenager that is stopped who does not have their ID but has done nothing wrong, other than having the misfortune of being a black teenager living in an intercity area? Suddenly they would go from having the problem of being stopped, searched and let go to being fined and treated as a criminal for not having a bit of card.
But the issue is that demanding ID without reason works the same as in the UK.
Er, what?
Scenario 1:- Policeman in Britain asks for ID for baseless reason. I say 'No'. I walk away. Nothing else happens.
Scenario 2:- Policeman in Germany asks for ID for baseless reason. I say 'No'. I walk away. The policeman says 'Hang on a bloody minute, you're legally obliged to do so; now get back here and present it or I'll drag you down the station, forcibly ID you there, and fine you for not showing it to me. By refusing me, you are breaking the law.'
Can you honestly not see the difference here?
Of course, but in function passport and ID hold the exact same information. The passport just comes in the form of a booklet for when stamps are necesarry.
It's not the information on it I have a problem with. To restate (because this doesn't seem to be going across), without a National ID card scheme by whatever name, you cannot have a law mandating people have to show their ID's. It's impossible, because not everybody will have one. If I shoot down any law mandating I need to have a National ID, I automatically prevent any law which can involve me being legally required to show it ever existing.
As I say, stop and search is only allowed on the basis of there being the same good reasons. In theory this is supposed to be when there is suspicion of a crime. It is a running joke (as Killkrazy says) of the people stopping people for "looking black in a built up area" and the like. Now what would happen to every black teenager that is stopped who does not have their ID but has done nothing wrong, other than having the misfortune of being a black teenager living in an intercity area? Suddenly they would go from having the problem of being stopped, searched and let go to being fined and treated as a criminal for not having a bit of card.
It's not just coloured people. Students doing a political protest? Better hope you brought your ID today, or they've got a reason to take you off the street. Sleeping rough? Better hope the wife didn't take the ID along with the house, or you'll be hit with a fine you can't pay. etcetc.
It hands a massive tool to state officials for harassing people, and frankly, they've got enough of them already. As Killkrazy accurately implies above, there is no pressing situation or need for this additional power that isn't already met by existing legislation.
Disciple of Fate wrote: That doesn't do anything to back up the argument that they can just ask for your ID, even wikipedia specifies its an identification requirement. We have moved from "they can just demand it" to police will abuse the rules and be racist about it, which happens regardless of specific rules.
In both Germany and the Netherlands I can simply refuse to ID myself as well. Unless they have a genuine reason.
But that's his point - police will abuse the rules and be racist about it, so surely the better option is to give them less rules to abuse. Also given the fact that police will abuse the rules, even a loosely worded "requirement" like the German one will, in practice, lead to lots of people carrying the ID cards at all times and producing them on-demand just to avoid the hassle, and once that precedent is established people who still refuse to do it even if perfectly within their legal rights to do so will be seen as "troublemakers".
Look at how the debate on online privacy has evolved over the years, where we're now at the point where merely expressing a preference to remain anonymous or pseudonymous because what you're doing online is nobody else's bloody business any more than what you're doing in the street or in your home is will have the tabloid crowd speculating you're a paedophile and the rabid end of identity politics advocates speculating you're a racist misogynist troll, with lots of people now firmly in the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mindset.
Give an inch and they will take a mile.
But an argument that if police abuse power then the law is bad can be used against a lot of laws. Its creating a problem based on another issue. This is more an argument against tackling police issues and racism than one against ID cards.
As for the identity politics, I'm pretty sure the tabloid crowd is the other end of that spectrum. But again, where does that end? Because rascism doesn't stop at the ID line. What other laws need to go?
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Oh my good God, do you want me to fold your tinfoil hat for you?? And what cashless society?? We can't even get rid of junky old savings books or cheques yet despite trying. Cash is not going anywhere for decades if not longer, if ever. I'm done, I can't have a serious argument with a conspiracy nut.
Small organisations need cheques - getting rid of them just causes them more problems as they have difficulty with credit cards.
No they don't. No company needs to use cheques now. They only ones that keep cheques do it because of ludditeism.
I am not talking about companies but charities, small violunteer organisations and the like which I deal with.
Good for the bank does not automatically meen good for the indivudal - in fact often the opposite.
Also on the subject of cheques a lot of self employed people still take them. Those in the countryside also make use of them as its much easier than having to go all the way into town to draw out money to pay a repair bill or gardener (self employed). Until the digital age brings 100% free card payments to every single mobile phone chances are the cheque will still exist. Even then it will still linger around for a long while; but it will steadily become more of a pain to use.
Already with many bank branches closing its more of a pain; though thankfully ou can still get them processed in the post office (takes longer though)
Card readers that work with phones are about £30 with a PAYG fee of less than 2%. Immediate payment in to your bank no risk of cheque bouncing, automatically accounted for, no need to bank and can automatically load transactions in to SAGE or equivalent. There is no reason for any company to still insist on cheques. Bank transfers are the other option, especially for charities and small volunteer organisations, now we have same day fastbacs. I cannot see any reason anyone would need to take a cheque. I cannot see any reason why this is the case other than people who like a physical bit of paper, even though that bit of paper is of no advantage (except in one small area, of suing on a cheque for debt recover, but this is a very niche area of law that I doubt crosses anyone's mind). I realy cannot see any reason not to use a PAYG card machine or bank transfers.
Of course, but in function passport and ID hold the exact same information. The passport just comes in the form of a booklet for when stamps are necesarry.
The function of a passport is to allow travel between different countries. As has been pointed out previously (by yourself?) in the Netherlands the necessary ID (or lack thereof) is also used to prevent people accessing the health care system or education. That is not the function of a passport.
I fail to see why the lack of an ID should prevent these things.
But the issue is that demanding ID without reason works the same as in the UK.
Er, what?
Scenario 1:- Policeman in Britain asks for ID for baseless reason. I say 'No'. I walk away. Nothing else happens.
Scenario 2:- Policeman in Germany asks for ID for baseless reason. I say 'No'. I walk away. The policeman says 'Hang on a bloody minute, you're legally obliged to do so; now get back here and present it or I'll drag you down the station, forcibly ID you there, and fine you for not showing it to me. By refusing me, you are breaking the law.'
Can you honestly not see the difference here?
Sorry, I meant that if police is abusing power and demand it without reason, what is stopping police in the UK of arresting you over the same 'genuine' suspicion? They can't arrest you for not producing ID, only fine, if they arrest you its just further abuse that isn't limited to ID laws. Again, you can ask a German officer for their reason, if they don't have a genuine reason they can't say you're legally obligated, because that isn't how the system works.
Of course, but in function passport and ID hold the exact same information. The passport just comes in the form of a booklet for when stamps are necesarry.
It's not the information on it I have a problem with. To restate (because this doesn't seem to be going across), without a National ID card scheme by whatever name, you cannot have a law mandating people have to show their ID's. It's impossible, because not everybody will have one. If I shoot down any law mandating I need to have a National ID, I automatically prevent any law which can involve me being legally required to show it ever existing.
I'm just stating that for the NL at least there is no functional difference (your ID functions as an EU passport). It is going across, I just have issues with the conclusions you draw based on abuse of power.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Oh my good God, do you want me to fold your tinfoil hat for you?? And what cashless society?? We can't even get rid of junky old savings books or cheques yet despite trying. Cash is not going anywhere for decades if not longer, if ever. I'm done, I can't have a serious argument with a conspiracy nut.
Small organisations need cheques - getting rid of them just causes them more problems as they have difficulty with credit cards.
No they don't. No company needs to use cheques now. They only ones that keep cheques do it because of ludditeism.
I am not talking about companies but charities, small violunteer organisations and the like which I deal with.
Good for the bank does not automatically meen good for the indivudal - in fact often the opposite.
Also on the subject of cheques a lot of self employed people still take them. Those in the countryside also make use of them as its much easier than having to go all the way into town to draw out money to pay a repair bill or gardener (self employed). Until the digital age brings 100% free card payments to every single mobile phone chances are the cheque will still exist. Even then it will still linger around for a long while; but it will steadily become more of a pain to use.
Already with many bank branches closing its more of a pain; though thankfully ou can still get them processed in the post office (takes longer though)
Card readers that work with phones are about £30 with a PAYG fee of less than 2%. Immediate payment in to your bank no risk of cheque bouncing, automatically accounted for, no need to bank and can automatically load transactions in to SAGE or equivalent. There is no reason for any company to still insist on cheques. Bank transfers are the other option, especially for charities and small volunteer organisations, now we have same day fastbacs. I cannot see any reason anyone would need to take a cheque. I cannot see any reason why this is the case other than people who like a physical bit of paper, even though that bit of paper is of no advantage (except in one small area, of suing on a cheque for debt recover, but this is a very niche area of law that I doubt crosses anyone's mind). I realy cannot see any reason not to use a PAYG card machine or bank transfers.
The ones i deal with often haev a cheque to avoid one person having full responsabiloty for the funds - so the cheques require dual signatures. We don;t insist on cheques - we take them to help them - they cna pay by cash credit card or other means but many use the cheques as part of their accounts process - again being all done by volunteers not professionals.
Of course, but in function passport and ID hold the exact same information. The passport just comes in the form of a booklet for when stamps are necesarry.
The function of a passport is to allow travel between different countries. As has been pointed out previously (by yourself?) in the Netherlands the necessary ID (or lack thereof) is also used to prevent people accessing the health care system or education. That is not the function of a passport.
I fail to see why the lack of an ID should prevent these things.
It is the function of a passport here and the ID is also an EU passport.
Because the ID/passport is official government proof you are who you say you are and holds your unique code to access those government services. People from abroad can use their passport and refugees/migrants get a piece of paper with their own code to access services. Its used as a different form of paperwork, they can't access the database behind issuing the ID/passport.
Sorry, I meant that if police is abusing power and demand it without reason, what is stopping police in the UK of arresting you over the same 'genuine' suspicion? They can't arrest you for not producing ID, only fine, if they arrest you its just further abuse that isn't limited to ID laws. Again, you can ask a German officer for their reason, if they don't have a genuine reason they can't say you're legally obligated, because that isn't how the system works.
So what happens if they won't (or can't) pay that fine?
I once used my Japanese Alien Registration Card to obtain foreign currency in a branch of Marks and Spencer in central London. I did it simply for amusement, to see if the cashier would accept it.
In general there are many more situations now than 10 years ago in which someone in the UK will need to prove their identity and immigration status. These have been created as part of the "hostile environment".
As a Brit, though, you can navigate through these bottlenecks using your passport, birth certificate, NHS card, driving licence, and so on.
As a foreigner you need your national ID card or passport, and your UK residency card, and NI card. (They don't issue those any more, very amusingly for reasons of cost.)
Given all these other proofs of identity, there doesn't appear to be a good reason to carry a national ID card, except so that you can produce it when asked by an official. It seems to me that creation of an ID card scheme would inevitably be accompanied by a new law to compel people to carry them and show them to the police on pain of a fine.
This is something which the British, for whatever reasons, have always been against.
Of course, but in function passport and ID hold the exact same information. The passport just comes in the form of a booklet for when stamps are necesarry.
The function of a passport is to allow travel between different countries. As has been pointed out previously (by yourself?) in the Netherlands the necessary ID (or lack thereof) is also used to prevent people accessing the health care system or education. That is not the function of a passport.
I fail to see why the lack of an ID should prevent these things.
It is the function of a passport here and the ID is also an EU passport.
Because the ID/passport is official government proof you are who you say you are and holds your unique code to access those government services. People from abroad can use their passport and refugees/migrants get a piece of paper with their own code to access services. Its used as a different form of paperwork, they can't access the database behind issuing the ID/passport.
So what happens if you do not provide any of these forms of ID?
Sorry, I meant that if police is abusing power and demand it without reason, what is stopping police in the UK of arresting you over the same 'genuine' suspicion? They can't arrest you for not producing ID, only fine, if they arrest you its just further abuse that isn't limited to ID laws. Again, you can ask a German officer for their reason, if they don't have a genuine reason they can't say you're legally obligated, because that isn't how the system works.
So what happens if they won't (or can't) pay that fine?
You should always appeal against said abuse of power, if you can't pay you should send a letter to the court stating why. Its not obligatory to be present in court.
Of course, but in function passport and ID hold the exact same information. The passport just comes in the form of a booklet for when stamps are necesarry.
The function of a passport is to allow travel between different countries. As has been pointed out previously (by yourself?) in the Netherlands the necessary ID (or lack thereof) is also used to prevent people accessing the health care system or education. That is not the function of a passport.
I fail to see why the lack of an ID should prevent these things.
It is the function of a passport here and the ID is also an EU passport.
Because the ID/passport is official government proof you are who you say you are and holds your unique code to access those government services. People from abroad can use their passport and refugees/migrants get a piece of paper with their own code to access services. Its used as a different form of paperwork, they can't access the database behind issuing the ID/passport.
So what happens if you do not provide any of these forms of ID?
Hospitals will still provide care because they can't refuse you. As for education, you won't get admitted to university/college (remember the age requirement means its not used in elementary/highschool). But then don't you need to provide official paperwork to get into a UK university?
Automatically Appended Next Post: NHS card? That reminds me, doesn't the UK NHS card have a European Health Insurance Card on the back? If you look at that its basically the same info as on our ID minus the picture for reference. We didn't use to have insurance cards for a long time though, mine only started issuing them a decade back. So I need either an ID or passport as official document.
So what happens if they won't (or can't) pay that fine?
You should always appeal against said abuse of power, if you can't pay you should send a letter to the court stating why. Its not obligatory to be present in court.
What if you simply refuse to pay it out of principles?
But then don't you need to provide official paperwork to get into a UK university?
Not in the form of this type of ID, no (but it's been a few years since I applied). You still obviously have to fill in application forms, but they are all managed through UCAS. The Universities do have to monitor 'foreigners' and that they are attending classes - because, simply there is a proportion of our government and populace that are bigoted and think all foreign students just come here to elope into the country somewhere.
So what happens if they won't (or can't) pay that fine?
You should always appeal against said abuse of power, if you can't pay you should send a letter to the court stating why. Its not obligatory to be present in court.
What if you simply refuse to pay it out of principles?
You can, its happened before, if your argument is convincing. People have won cases against a fine like that. You can show your driving license too. The ID card/passport is only exlusively employed in a few specific government sectors, law enforcement not being one of them. They have been going back and forth over making the ID free, which they should because service costs are up to the local government, which ends up in a weird situation where its free in some places but not others.
But then don't you need to provide official paperwork to get into a UK university?
Not in the form of this type of ID, no (but it's been a few years since I applied). You still obviously have to fill in application forms, but they are all managed through UCAS. The Universities do have to monitor 'foreigners' and that they are attending classes - because, simply there is a proportion of our government and populace that are bigoted and think all foreign students just come here to elope into the country somewhere.
Yeah I got that when you don't have an ID. But as far as I'm aware from some of my interest you still need to present a birth certificate, driver's license or passport i.e. government issued documents.
You don't need an ID in the UK. Its streamlined a few things but overall it should be mandatory to get one free because of the citizen number which the UK seems to use less or not at all, then you don't have to fine people over it. Its a stupid implementation.
What if you simply refuse to pay it out of principles?
You can, its happened before, if your argument is convincing. People have won cases against a fine like that. You can show your driving license too. The ID card/passport is only exlusively employed in a few specific government sectors, law enforcement not being one of them. They have been going back and forth over making the ID free, which they should because service costs are up to the local government, which ends up in a weird situation where its free in some places but not others.
So really the ID isn't mandatory, you just have to put up with the hassle of appealing. Although I'm interested to find out what happens if you lose the case (or if you didn't turn up?)
Whirlwind wrote: Yeah I got that when you don't have an ID. But as far as I'm aware from some of my interest you still need to present a birth certificate, driver's license or passport i.e. government issued documents.
You don't need an ID in the UK. Its streamlined a few things but overall it should be mandatory to get one free because of the citizen number which the UK seems to use less or not at all, then you don't have to fine people over it. Its a stupid implementation.
No you don't need ID to go to University. The confusion arises because the UK government is trying to pass on immigration duties on to schools, universities, doctors and so forth. They are legally required to monitor 'foreigners'. Some universities take the approach that they will check everyone's nationality rather than risk any fines (and accusations of racial stereotyping). So rather than needing ID to go to university, it's more a border agency by the back door. However it's not a necessity to prove who you are to go to university (as a British citizen) and don't need to undertake that check if they are happy with the information they already have (for example references from teachers saying someone has been at their school since X etc). For example when I applied to do a PhD I didn't provide ID evidence of who I was (although again this was several years ago).
What if you simply refuse to pay it out of principles?
You can, its happened before, if your argument is convincing. People have won cases against a fine like that. You can show your driving license too. The ID card/passport is only exlusively employed in a few specific government sectors, law enforcement not being one of them. They have been going back and forth over making the ID free, which they should because service costs are up to the local government, which ends up in a weird situation where its free in some places but not others.
So really the ID isn't mandatory, you just have to put up with the hassle of appealing. Although I'm interested to find out what happens if you lose the case (or if you didn't turn up?)
Well legally speaking it is of course, its just that the court can be lenient. We had a big case of a Jewish man who appealed and won. If you lose you just have to pay the fine which is 90 euros, so 75-80 pounds? Same for any other tickets you lose an appeal to really.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Yeah I got that when you don't have an ID. But as far as I'm aware from some of my interest you still need to present a birth certificate, driver's license or passport i.e. government issued documents.
You don't need an ID in the UK. Its streamlined a few things but overall it should be mandatory to get one free because of the citizen number which the UK seems to use less or not at all, then you don't have to fine people over it. Its a stupid implementation.
No you don't need ID to go to University. The confusion arises because the UK government is trying to pass on immigration duties on to schools, universities, doctors and so forth. They are legally required to monitor 'foreigners'. Some universities take the approach that they will check everyone's nationality rather than risk any fines (and accusations of racial stereotyping). So rather than needing ID to go to university, it's more a border agency by the back door. However it's not a necessity to prove who you are to go to university (as a British citizen) and don't need to undertake that check if they are happy with the information they already have (for example references from teachers saying someone has been at their school since X etc). For example when I applied to do a PhD I didn't provide ID evidence of who I was (although again this was several years ago).
Yeah if its not mandatory then needing would make no sense. Although UK universities would also accept a Dutch ID (same as at the airport). But here they ask for ID because we're all supposed to have one anyway. But when you applied for a PhD didn't they just have your file in their system. Looking at the application system you do need some official documentation to apply. Here you apply through a system that works with your unique number on the ID because the universities are public so its all digitally linked. I never had to show my ID, because they knew I had one through the system because of the specific digital identification code I used linked to it (which is basically meant to enable you to use your number without most employees needing to access the true database).
Okay, so your problem is that police officers in Germany stop people of colour? And exactly how is an ID a problem in that?
You've got it literally the wrong way around.
My problem is that state officials have the ability to stop you and harass you on the pretext of checking for ID, and then count it against you if you refuse to/cannot produce it (going so far as to being able to arrest you as a result). And them having that power in turn means that they have an additional tool by which to hassle and detain people; be it because of colour, protesting for animal rights, or whatever.
As someone who believes my business and identity are my own, I see no reason for state officials, be they police or council workers, to be able to demand something of me. If there is a genuine suspicion that I have committed an arrestable offence, then arrest me. Otherwise, leave me be.
Well, then you should have no objection against ID cards, because no state official could use ID cards for such a purpose (in the same they can not use driving licenses or passports for that purpose). In the Netherlands and in the UK as well it is illegal for police to stop someone just to check their ID, unless the area has increased security in which case the police will have a special warrant from the local government. This has never been a problem in the Netherlands or Germany or any European country with ID cards (which is all of them), so it won't be a problem in the UK as well.
Again, in the UK police can still ask you to ID yourself, so there is already no practical difference between the UK and other European countries, except in that in those other European countries IDing yourself is easier for those people that do not have a driving license since they can just show their ID card. Again, in the UK, the police can still arrest you if you can't or refuse to ID yourself if they think you may have committed an offence. It is the same in the Netherlands, where police can only stop you and ask to ID yourself (and arrest if you can't or refuse to show) if they think you have committed an offence (or if you are in an area of increased security). They can't just walk in the street asking random people for their IDs. There is only very little practical difference, because in both places police need to know the identity of people they are dealing with, and in both places there are laws in place that protect the public from unwarranted harassment by the police.
Sorry, I meant that if police is abusing power and demand it without reason, what is stopping police in the UK of arresting you over the same 'genuine' suspicion? They can't arrest you for not producing ID, only fine, if they arrest you its just further abuse that isn't limited to ID laws. Again, you can ask a German officer for their reason, if they don't have a genuine reason they can't say you're legally obligated, because that isn't how the system works.
The obvious question arises as to how a policeman can fine someone who won't identify themselves without arresting them? I mean, it's not my country so I'm not au fait with the specifics, but it wouldn't make much sense to have it be the law for you to produce your ID when demanded, and the police be able to fine you for not producing ID; only for any such attempts to do so being stymied by you turning around and walking away. One assumes that if you refuse to ID yourself, the police have the ability to pull you in for questioning/forcible identification. Otherwise they literally wouldn't be able to issue the fine. You can't mail a bill to an unknown person at an unknown address after all.
With regards to what stops the police in Britain arresting you over the same suspicion/prejudice as Germany in cases of discrimination, it's a question of options. Here, if a policeman stops you, asks for ID, and you refuse to show it, he either has to act on his original suspicion/prejudice (putting it on all the paperwork and opening it up to senior oversight) or leave you be. In Germany, if the copper asks you for ID because of his suspicion/prejudice and your refuse to show it or don't have it, he now has grounds for further action unrelated to that original suspicion. When he brings you into the station, it won't be the original 'vague suspicion' marked down as the reason for taking you there. It'll be because you refused identification; making you more suspicious generally and in breach of the law saying you need to ID yourself.
In essence, the act of refusing/being unable to provide identification opens up the possibility of incriminating yourself. To a smart lad who carries his ID, that option is blocked. The German officer checks the ID and has no further ability to discriminate/harass that his British counterpart does not. To the black lad ID'd for the fifth time tonight who is bored of it, gets sarky, and refuses to show it/cannot do so? Our German officer now has a reason for bringing him in to put down on the paperwork that isn't baseless or unjustified. One that his British counterpart wouldn't have, and which won't mark him out as hassling someone.
Sorry, I meant that if police is abusing power and demand it without reason, what is stopping police in the UK of arresting you over the same 'genuine' suspicion? They can't arrest you for not producing ID, only fine, if they arrest you its just further abuse that isn't limited to ID laws. Again, you can ask a German officer for their reason, if they don't have a genuine reason they can't say you're legally obligated, because that isn't how the system works.
The obvious question arises as to how a policeman can fine someone who won't identify themselves without arresting them? I mean, it's not my country so I'm not au fait with the specifics, but it wouldn't make much sense to have it be the law for you to produce your ID when demanded, and the police be able to fine you for not producing ID; only for any such attempts to do so being stymied by you turning around and walking away. One assumes that if you refuse to ID yourself, the police have the ability to pull you in for questioning/forcible identification. Otherwise they literally wouldn't be able to issue the fine. You can't mail a bill to an unknown person at an unknown address after all.
With regards to what stops the police in Britain arresting you over the same suspicion/prejudice as Germany in cases of discrimination, it's a question of options. Here, if a policeman stops you, asks for ID, and you refuse to show it, he either has to act on his original suspicion/prejudice (putting it on all the paperwork and opening it up to senior oversight) or leave you be. In Germany, if the copper asks you for ID because of his suspicion/prejudice and your refuse to show it or don't have it, he now has grounds for further action unrelated to that original suspicion. When he brings you into the station, it won't be the original 'vague suspicion' marked down as the reason for taking you there. It'll be because you refused identification; making you more suspicious generally and in breach of the law saying you need to ID yourself.
In essence, the act of refusing/being unable to provide identification opens up the possibility of incriminating yourself. To a smart lad who carries his ID, that option is blocked. The German officer checks the ID and has no further ability to discriminate/harass that his British counterpart does not. To the black lad ID'd for the fifth time tonight who is bored of it, gets sarky, and refuses to show it/cannot do so? Our German officer now has a reason for bringing him in to put down on the paperwork that isn't baseless or unjustified. One that his British counterpart wouldn't have, and which won't mark him out as hassling someone.
But how can you fine someone when you don't have a valid reason to issue the fine in the first place?. Again, the law is an identification policy, not a carrying one. In your example with the friends in the car the officer could have only asked for ID if he had a genuine suspicion you were the criminals in question, in which case the UK officers would also move to arrest you because ID doesn't spell out criminal on it. You would assume that, but again that is not how the law works here, specifically so. You could only fine them for not having an ID if you were already fining them. Is it that different from the UK when you don't want to identify yourself for a fine? The same unknown person and unknown address (they still have to ask for your address though because its not on there, they just check it in the system against where you live) reasoning applies.
But in both your examples it already its the same choice, does the officer push forward with his prejudice and risk his work over it? If that person files a complaint that they only got arrested over not showing ID the case will get thrown out, because that isn't sufficient reason for an arrest. Its the same case of hassling.
In the Netherlands and in the UK as well it is illegal for police to stop someone just to check their ID
You're missing the subtext. A policeman will never stop you explicitly to check your ID in Germany. But he might think that you look dodgy because you're black and it's night, or because you're annoying him in a political protest, or somesuch; at which point he can fabricate a suspicion ('I could have sworn I saw you put a white powder in your pocket') to ID you off of in the hope you won't be carrying one.
Again, in the UK police can still ask you to ID yourself, so there is already no practical difference between the UK and other European countries, except in that in those other European countries
They can ask politely, but never demand. And I can refuse. That is the practical difference.
Again, in the UK, the police can still arrest you if you can't or refuse to ID yourself if they think you may have committed an offence.
You're wrong there actually. It rarely comes up, but you're under no legal obligation to identify yourself even when arrested in the UK. Furthermore, you're actively protected from 'Obstructing the police' in doing so. If you've done nothing, refuse to identify yourself, and the police were unable to get a court order to hold you longer, they'd technically have to release you.
Doesn't really happen (people carry wallets with their names in, phones, etc, as well as being in fingerprint databases and the like), but if a policeman arrests you? It's because he thought you had or were about to commit an arrestable offence. Identity doesn't come into it.
But how can you fine someone when you don't have a valid reason to issue the fine in the first place?
The fine, according to yourself, is for not showing your ID. So...the reason for fining someone for not showing their ID is that they refuse to show their ID?
You could only fine them for not having an ID if you were already fining them.
According to the Wiki, you're liable for a fine for not presenting your ID (be it at home after being escorted there, claiming you don't have any, or after point blank refusing). It doesn't say that they have to be charging you for something else simultaenously. If there's further detail I haven't seen along those lines, I wouldn't mind being linked to it.
But in both your examples it already its the same choice, does the officer push forward with his prejudice and risk his work over it? If that person files a complaint that they only got arrested over not showing ID the case will get thrown out, because that isn't sufficient reason for an arrest. Its the same case of hassling.
So you're telling me that if someone refuses to/cannot show to show his ID, and gets arrested/fined as a result so they can determine his identity; the superiors of the arresting officer would consider that dodgy or 'hassling' behaviour on his part? Because frankly, I'm amazed anyone ever pays a fine or bothers to carry ID in that case. I mean, given that nothing happens and the courts all throw it out, and the policemen get black marks against them. Heck, why even have the law? It's effectively non-functional.
I also think that regardless of any of the above, this is getting a little bogged down in the specifics of Germany/UK comparisons. There are plenty of other countries out there with ID cards and presentation laws.
My interest in the matter is simple: by preventing ID cards coming into existence, I prevent any laws around ID card presentation coming into existence. The reason why I oppose those ID card presentation laws is because I view them as being an extroadinarily expensive unnecessary security risk; which also often happens to be used as an additional club to hit discriminated against/vulnerable people. I also dislike the concept of anyone being able to accost me and demand to know my business with my being compelled to reply under fear of consequences (be it wasting time in the station, fines, or anything else).
Disciple of Fate wrote: But when you applied for a PhD didn't they just have your file in their system. Looking at the application system you do need some official documentation to apply. Here you apply through a system that works with your unique number on the ID because the universities are public so its all digitally linked. I never had to show my ID, because they knew I had one through the system because of the specific digital identification code I used linked to it (which is basically meant to enable you to use your number without most employees needing to access the true database).
No completely different university that I had never previously been too. Systems aren't linked like this in the UK. In fact this would contravene data protection acts to transfer personal in this way. UK universities are completely separate entities and are not really public bodies in the sense of a local Council (however even these cannot share personal data).
I think my overall conclusion is that UK citizens much more value their privacy from state intrusion than perhaps other European citizens and are much less trusting of their governments not exploit/lose such information (considering the handling of Wrexit should anybody be surprised?)
However going back to Wrexit for a moment. More Wrexit issues if it is hard exit. Less BLT sandwiches! Or strictly speaking that choices may become more limited because of the delays in obtaining fresh produce.
But how can you fine someone when you don't have a valid reason to issue the fine in the first place?
The fine, according to yourself, is for not showing your ID. So...the reason for fining someone for not showing their ID is that they refuse to show their ID?
But then you need to have a valid reason that holds up in court for being in a position to issue said fine first.
You could only fine them for not having an ID if you were already fining them.
According to the Wiki, you're liable for a fine for not presenting your ID (be it at home after being escorted there, or after point blank refusing. It doesn't say that they have to be charging you for something else simultaenously. If there's further detail I haven't seen along those lines, I wouldn't mind being linked to it.
No, but say you fine them for something and they don't have an ID, that's when you could fine them. Your car example would mean they can't fine you because there is no genuine reason to do so. Although if you think this law sounds crazy, our 1994 road law basically allows police to flag you down regardless of the vehicle you operate on a public road, of course what they do after they flag you down gets into more hazy legal territory.
But in both your examples it already its the same choice, does the officer push forward with his prejudice and risk his work over it? If that person files a complaint that they only got arrested over not showing ID the case will get thrown out, because that isn't sufficient reason for an arrest. Its the same case of hassling.
So you're telling me that if someone refuses to/cannot show to show his ID, and gets arrested/fined as a result so they can determine his identity; the superiors of the arresting officer would consider that dodgy or 'hassling' behaviour on his part? Because frankly, I'm amazed anyone ever pays a fine or bothers to carry ID in that case. I mean, given that nothing happens and the courts all throw it out, and the policemen get black marks against them. Heck, why even have the law? It's effectively non-functional.
I also think that regardless of any of the above, this is getting a little bogged down in the specifics of Germany/UK comparisons. There are plenty of other countries out there with ID cards and presentation laws.
My interest in the matter is simple: by preventing ID cards coming into existence, I prevent any laws around ID card presentation coming into existence. The reason why I oppose those ID card presentation laws is because I view them as being an extroadinarily expensive, unnecessary security risk; which also often happens to be used as an additional club to hit the discriminated against/vulnerable people. I also dislike the concept of anyone being able to accost me and demand to know my business with my being compelled to reply under fear of consequences (be it wasting time in the station, fines, or anything else).
I'm not sure I've much else to say on it really.
Like a lot of fines you get, most people don't bother to appeal. And its pretty amazing to find an officer who will actually fine you because mostly you get let off with a warning. ID fines make up 0.05% (about half of them get rejected out of hand by the justice department) of the total I believe, with most people paying it for no reason because they couldn't be bothered sending a letter. A significant part of them are second tickets for things like cycling without bicycles lights and public urination etc. So yes in effect doesn't really function. The law is stupidly implemented because the government wants everybody to have an ID for convenience and they made that law, but instead of making them free, in most places they cost money and you get fined over them. A much better solution would have been to make them free, make it so you still fine, but only let it go into effect if you either don't show you have one in the next week or actually did something wrong. Racial profiling still happens more on the road, as in "that *insert non white colored person* drives an awfully nice car, lets pull them over" because they can do that without reason.
I get your point really, the expensive part just lands on our plate, they are valid for a decade but you have to cough up for one even though they are mandatory. You would think that's a genius way for the national government to make money, but they don't even get that income only local government does
Here we have to live with it, its been more convenient than its been a hassle to me, but that's just me.
Disciple of Fate wrote: But when you applied for a PhD didn't they just have your file in their system. Looking at the application system you do need some official documentation to apply. Here you apply through a system that works with your unique number on the ID because the universities are public so its all digitally linked. I never had to show my ID, because they knew I had one through the system because of the specific digital identification code I used linked to it (which is basically meant to enable you to use your number without most employees needing to access the true database).
No completely different university that I had never previously been too. Systems aren't linked like this in the UK. In fact this would contravene data protection acts to transfer personal in this way. UK universities are completely separate entities and are not really public bodies in the sense of a local Council (however even these cannot share personal data).
I think my overall conclusion is that UK citizens much more value their privacy from state intrusion than perhaps other European citizens and are much less trusting of their governments not exploit/lose such information (considering the handling of Wrexit should anybody be surprised?)
However going back to Wrexit for a moment. More Wrexit issues if it is hard exit. Less BLT sandwiches! Or strictly speaking that choices may become more limited because of the delays in obtaining fresh produce.
I assume they did it based on your degree as proof? I think we value privacy too, ID just doesn't push that button for a lot of people, not like censoring the internet I think the legal protections in place right now are quite good on that data. But if a government really wants to do wrong there are much more worse ways.
Speaking of Brexit, the UK's favored position with opt outs enabled you to circumvent EUID standards. If you ever want to get back in that's going to be a problem.
In both cases the police officer needs to charge you with something to insist you identify yourself. In the UK that means finding some com ovation of paperwork or a trip to the station. In most of the EU it means producing an I'D card or a trip to the station.
Both require a crime to have been suspected. The German police (according to the German poster) are not legally allowed to ask for your ID purely to fine you for having no ID. Just like the UK police can't ask for you to identify yourself purely to charge you with obstruction.
They are both literally the same except for the medium that counts as I'D, and that the German police can fine you for not being able to do produce it whilst being identified in the process of handling another suspected crime.
You're latching hard onto something that doesn't exist.
Germans have a long memory; they'd never accept the approach to carrying ID that you're worried about.
Would the UK instigate the sort of thing you're worried about? Quite Likely, if it's outside of the EU (I bet it impeached on EU codified human rights somewhere)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Can anyone make sense of this blind brexit thing? Who gets to see what's happening?
I assume they did it based on your degree as proof? I think we value privacy too, ID just doesn't push that button for a lot of people, not like censoring the internet I think the legal protections in place right now are quite good on that data. But if a government really wants to do wrong there are much more worse ways.
It's a bit antiquated really. At the end of your degree I was given sealed envelopes with my grades for each of the courses. You give these (unopened) to the university you are accepted at. I wouldn't call it ID though. It's just names and scores, there's nothing specific to say it is actually you.
Yeah not many of us like the way the UK government is trying to censor the internet either. Unfortunately those in government are either using it to watch porn in their offices or otherwise think it is only used by terrorists. They much prefer that we got our news direct from them rather than ask awkward questions. The UK always seems to be a battle between the populace and the government (especially the Tories) when it comes to personal freedoms.
Speaking of Brexit, the UK's favored position with opt outs enabled you to circumvent EUID standards. If you ever want to get back in that's going to be a problem.
I don't think there is much question that leaving is going to cost the UK substantially really, both now and the inevitable time we would like to rejoin. For some reason we obviously like shooting ourselves in the foot, leg, arm and hand all at the same time.
I assume they did it based on your degree as proof? I think we value privacy too, ID just doesn't push that button for a lot of people, not like censoring the internet I think the legal protections in place right now are quite good on that data. But if a government really wants to do wrong there are much more worse ways.
It's a bit antiquated really. At the end of your degree I was given sealed envelopes with my grades for each of the courses. You give these (unopened) to the university you are accepted at. I wouldn't call it ID though. It's just names and scores, there's nothing specific to say it is actually you.
Yeah not many of us like the way the UK government is trying to censor the internet either. Unfortunately those in government are either using it to watch porn in their offices or otherwise think it is only used by terrorists. They much prefer that we got our news direct from them rather than ask awkward questions. The UK always seems to be a battle between the populace and the government (especially the Tories) when it comes to personal freedoms.
Oh no, its not ID but it works on a trust basis towards other universities.
Regarding the internet, its funny, a UK government would love a more passive population while the Dutch government has that population and just half asses things it kinda wants. I guess it breeds complacency, but the ID card in different form has been baked into multiple generations, now the revolutionary thing is that they actually hand them to us instead of keeping those things at city hall, pretty strange but also explains why not many people were that opposed to it.
Speaking of Brexit, the UK's favored position with opt outs enabled you to circumvent EUID standards. If you ever want to get back in that's going to be a problem.
I don't think there is much question that leaving is going to cost the UK substantially really, both now and the inevitable time we would like to rejoin. For some reason we obviously like shooting ourselves in the foot, leg, arm and hand all at the same time.
Yes, its going to hurt the NL too. After Germany you guys are probably our closest political and economic partner in the EU.
In the Netherlands and in the UK as well it is illegal for police to stop someone just to check their ID
You're missing the subtext. A policeman will never stop you explicitly to check your ID in Germany. But he might think that you look dodgy because you're black and it's night, or because you're annoying him in a political protest, or somesuch; at which point he can fabricate a suspicion ('I could have sworn I saw you put a white powder in your pocket') to ID you off of in the hope you won't be carrying one.
Again, in the UK police can still ask you to ID yourself, so there is already no practical difference between the UK and other European countries, except in that in those other European countries
They can ask politely, but never demand. And I can refuse. That is the practical difference.
Again, in the UK, the police can still arrest you if you can't or refuse to ID yourself if they think you may have committed an offence.
You're wrong there actually. It rarely comes up, but you're under no legal obligation to identify yourself even when arrested in the UK. Furthermore, you're actively protected from 'Obstructing the police' in doing so. If you've done nothing, refuse to identify yourself, and the police were unable to get a court order to hold you longer, they'd technically have to release you.
Doesn't really happen (people carry wallets with their names in, phones, etc, as well as being in fingerprint databases and the like), but if a policeman arrests you? It's because he thought you had or were about to commit an arrestable offence. Identity doesn't come into it.
A policeman can also stop you because you are black and he thinks you look dodgy in the UK and ask you for your personal details. Again, this is no difference. In the Netherlands or Germany, the police can only ask for your ID if they have a valid reason to be asking for your ID (otherwise they are committing an offence themselves). If they just stop you on the street and can't provide you with a valid reason why you should be showing them your ID, you are not obliged to show them your ID either. And if they arrest you and you still refuse to identify yourself, they also have to let you go after the legal limit on how long they can hold you expires (unless they can get an order to detain you longer).
And in Britain you do need to provide your identity and address to a police officer is he is halting you because he thinks you committed an offence or if you are driving a vehicle (All the UK police sites I have just searched for information say so) or else the officer is allowed to take you to the police station to establish your details there (same as in Germany or the Netherlands, and they have to let you go after the legal limit expires even if you still do not cooperate). Really the only practical difference is the ability to fine people for not carrying an ID, and seeing as that ID cards do not carry any secret information or any information at all beyond your name, age, address and place of birth (information that is already known to the police as organisation anyway) and provide a lot of convenience to people, I do not think that is a difference significant enough to justify opposition. The UK could even introduce ID cards without an obligation to always carry an ID.
Again, ID cards are used by virtually every country in Europe, and abuses of it are virtually non-existent. This just seems like one of those really things that are completely normal and nothing but beneficial but that the British are for some odd reason opposed to, like the metric system, decimal currency, proportional representation, the EU or driving on the right side of the road.
But how can you fine someone when you don't have a valid reason to issue the fine in the first place?
The fine, according to yourself, is for not showing your ID. So...the reason for fining someone for not showing their ID is that they refuse to show their ID?
But they can only ask for your ID when stopping you for something else. So the fine for not showing your ID is on top of whatever fine you already got for whatever offence you were initially stopped for. They can't stop you just for suspecting or checking that you aren't carrying an ID.
You could only fine them for not having an ID if you were already fining them.
According to the Wiki, you're liable for a fine for not presenting your ID (be it at home after being escorted there, claiming you don't have any, or after point blank refusing). It doesn't say that they have to be charging you for something else simultaenously. If there's further detail I haven't seen along those lines, I wouldn't mind being linked to it.
Ketara wrote: My interest in the matter is simple: by preventing ID cards coming into existence, I prevent any laws around ID card presentation coming into existence. The reason why I oppose those ID card presentation laws is because I view them as being an extroadinarily expensive unnecessary security risk; which also often happens to be used as an additional club to hit discriminated against/vulnerable people. I also dislike the concept of anyone being able to accost me and demand to know my business with my being compelled to reply under fear of consequences (be it wasting time in the station, fines, or anything else).
I'm not sure I've much else to say on it really.
Those fears are unfounded. ID cards and ID carrying laws are used in all of Europe except the UK, and they have been used for decades, and it has never led to any of the problems you are describing. Really an ID card is just a small convenience, nothing more, and ID presentation laws make the police's job just a tiny bit easier without infringing on the rights of the public, which is as well protected in Germany as it is in the UK. Again, German police officers, just like UK officers can't stop you without valid reason, and if they do not provide a valid reason you can choose not to answer their questions.
So in summary, British people have no need for ID cards, which don't have any useful function, don't want them, and have a government which is incapable of introducing them.
Kilkrazy wrote: So in summary, British people have no need for ID cards, which don't have any useful function, don't want them, and have a government which is incapable of introducing them.
Sorted!
Let's drop this topic and chat about Love Island.
That about sums it up.
Is Love Island how you're going to market the UK after Brexit
Kilkrazy wrote: So in summary, British people have no need for ID cards, which don't have any useful function, don't want them, and have a government which is incapable of introducing them.
Sorted!
Let's drop this topic and chat about Love Island.
That about sums it up.
Well the Tories have already started to sell a line of water bottles based on it. Perhaps they are thinking they need to supplement their income after anyone with a brain abandons their party membership?
Scenario 1:- Policeman in Britain asks for ID for baseless reason. I say 'No'. I walk away. Nothing else happens.
Scenario 2:- Policeman in Germany asks for ID for baseless reason. I say 'No'. I walk away. The policeman says 'Hang on a bloody minute, you're legally obliged to do so; now get back here and present it or I'll drag you down the station, forcibly ID you there, and fine you for not showing it to me. By refusing me, you are breaking the law.'
Can you honestly not see the difference here?
The difference is that the British policeman is really incompetent when it comes to abuse of power while the german is really inefficient. Why would they ask you for ID if you can just get away like that. That's a unusable attempt to abuse their power. If they really wanted to abuse you they would just shift their approach a bit so that their abuse is within their job descriptions. Why would they even try something that doesn't work? Are they cartoon villains? You'll never become a good tyrant with such an simplistic view of power and how to abuse it.
And the german one is using a really lame way to abuse people with their "power". Like any other police officer anywhere else in the world they have other methods they would use preferably instead of asking for your identification. That abuse is on the level of those people who checke for valid tickets on a train (or would you decline such checks because they could trace back to the station where you entered the train and thus be used to track you?).
Two decades ago or so German police even accepted one of my old passports (I had forgotten to renew it) when asking for my ID. ID cards allow for a simple standardised way of accessing certain data (to show that you are you). It's how we all use currency as a main way of commerce instead of using the old trusted barter system.
Doesn't Britain have the world's highest density in CCTV cameras? Somebody gaining access to a bit chunk of that data would be much more effective than a little plastic card. And didn't Britain also heavily cooperate with US surveillance agencies? Why's an ID card such an affront to one's autonomy but that stuff's still working and an actual instance of surveillance activity by the UK government?
That being said here in Bavaria some conservative politicians want harsher surveillance laws and more power for the police but even the police union is against their paranoid bs.
Okay, so your problem is that police officers in Germany stop people of colour? And exactly how is an ID a problem in that?
You've got it literally the wrong way around.
My problem is that state officials have the ability to stop you and harass you on the pretext of checking for ID, and then count it against you if you refuse to/cannot produce it (going so far as to being able to arrest you as a result). And them having that power in turn means that they have an additional tool by which to hassle and detain people; be it because of colour, protesting for animal rights, or whatever.
As someone who believes my business and identity are my own, I see no reason for state officials, be they police or council workers, to be able to demand something of me. If there is a genuine suspicion that I have committed an arrestable offence, then arrest me. Otherwise, leave me be.
Well then you should have no problem with id card as it doesn't happen with it any more than without. Id card doesn't cause that and conversely if police wants to abuse his position not having id card doesn't help either as said police will demand you to prove you one way or another. What does he care what method you use when he's abusing his powers.
Your arqument stinks as it provenly and logically doesn't happen. Only way you could arque it would happen in uk if you somehow think people of uk are genetically inferior to rest of the world or some other weird reason
In my own experience, the German police ask for ID in relevant situations (for example, after a car crash), but if for some reason you don't have your issued ID with you, they're also happy to look at your driver's license or any other official document that might be of use. And even if you have NO form of ID at all on you (happened to my mother recently after she bumped into a car in a parking lot), they just asked her for her name and address and were happy to trust her word (for now). The latter might be dependent on how cooperative and trustworthy you seem to the police (which, I guess, is the basis for how MOST things go with the police, literally anywhere).
As a disclaimer, I'm aware some cops might be more mistrustful and handle things harsher if they have a xenophobic streak and you look like a foreigner, but I'm also agreeing with statements made here before that this is then a problem with the individual cop, not with the German ID system.
Kilkrazy wrote: So in summary, British people have no need for ID cards, which don't have any useful function, don't want them, and have a government which is incapable of introducing them.
Sorted!
Let's drop this topic and chat about Love Island.
Considering that the tories are pushing for requiring photo ID to vote in elections, a universal, freely available government ID could actually be useful.
Passports are quite expensive to acquire for low income people, if you are banned from driving or have a serious disability you cannot get a driving licence, so what official photo government photo ID is left without those two forms?
They trialled Voter ID in the recent local elections. It was a huge disaster. Lots of voters didn't have anything, and were very angry to be turned away.
Deciding to require national ID because of deciding to require voter ID, neither of which have any proven necessity and both of which go against deep-rooted British traditions, is not a valid argument for national ID, IMO.
Kilkrazy wrote: They trialled Voter ID in the recent local elections. It was a huge disaster. Lots of voters didn't have anything, and were very angry to be turned away.
Deciding to require national ID because of deciding to require voter ID, neither of which have any proven necessity and both of which go against deep-rooted British traditions, is not a valid argument for national ID, IMO.
This is the tories though. Something being a huge disaster and causing massive anger and aguish only drives them to do it more in some vain attempt to prove that they were right all along.
For examples see Brexit, Badger culls, austerity, disability assessments, etc.
EU regulations currently prevent doctors from qualifying before five years of training. Just one of countless examples of EU "market building" that do nothing of the sort, instead causing disruption and impairing UK policymakers.
.... I know it's kinda cool to rage against experts currently, didn't think this was now extending to wanting less qualified Drs.
I actually went to medical school for three years. It's a very tough course. (Part of why I gave it up.)
I think if we have a crisis of not enough doctors and need to attract more people to the profession, the best way to do it is to make medical school even tougher.
Kilkrazy wrote: Agreed. More examples include academy trust schools, the probation service, and the National Citizen Service scheme.
Most of these ideas are designed at least partly just to funnel taxe revenues over to private companies.
That's why it is so disappointing to watch Labour make nothing of their opportunities.
To be fair the government are cancling the probation services contracts. Let’s just gloss over the fact that they are doing so because running something with no revenue stream as a private services is a monumentally stupid idea and totally ideologically driven and proven to be so.
Personally I think the "private is best" ideology ran out of practicable steam with the privatisation of the railways under Major. Pretty much all the public-private partnerships or outsourcings since than have been bad.
Now with the imminent collapse of Northamptonshire Council -- run for years by Conservatives -- we can see that Conservatives are also unable to run public bodies properly.
Kilkrazy wrote: I actually went to medical school for three years. It's a very tough course. (Part of why I gave it up.)
I think if we have a crisis of not enough doctors and need to attract more people to the profession, the best way to do it is to make medical school even tougher.
As I've said before, the solution to the NHS doctor and nurse crisis is staring us in the face, and if Parliament grants me emergency authority, I'll dig out my passport and fix it this week.
Fill up a black bag full of visas, fly out to India, grab 50,000 doctors, jet them back, and problem solved.
Kilkrazy wrote: They trialled Voter ID in the recent local elections. It was a huge disaster. Lots of voters didn't have anything, and were very angry to be turned away.
Deciding to require national ID because of deciding to require voter ID, neither of which have any proven necessity and both of which go against deep-rooted British traditions, is not a valid argument for national ID, IMO.
This is the tories though. Something being a huge disaster and causing massive anger and aguish only drives them to do it more in some vain attempt to prove that they were right all along.
For examples see Brexit, Badger culls, austerity, disability assessments, etc.
I agree with you, and it doesn't happen often.
But I will bet every last penny I have, thousands of wargames miniatures, dozens of rulebooks, and my house, that millions of people down your way will vote Tories come the next election.
The Tories could bulldoze Stonehenge, demolish Big Ben, and privatise the Royal Navy, and millions would still vote for them.
The Labour Party is not covering itself with oppositional glory.
All the other third parties are too small and unproven for people to invest faith in them, except the regionals (SNP) who by definition won't operate in England where most of the electorate live.
Kilkrazy wrote: Partly for the lack of a credible alternative.
The Labour Party is not covering itself with oppositional glory.
All the other third parties are too small and unproven for people to invest faith in them, except the regionals (SNP) who by definition won't operate in England where most of the electorate live.
It's like what I said a few weeks ago: a decade of coalition politics is upon us.
On a serious note, and this is why I'm still pushing the EEA/EFTA deal:
the heatwave is badly affecting food production, England will probably get flooded again this winter, a no-deal Brexit is on the table, and energy prices will probably rise as well...
I seriously think we're in for a winter of discontent on a scale that will make the last one look like a dust up at a WI meeting.
As I've said before, the solution to the NHS doctor and nurse crisis is staring us in the face, and if Parliament grants me emergency authority, I'll dig out my passport and fix it this week.
Fill up a black bag full of visas, fly out to India, grab 50,000 doctors, jet them back, and problem solved.
This sort of view really annoys me. Nothing personal DINLT but effectively what you are proposing is to screw over people in another part of the world simply because they are "out or sight, out of mind". It's all very well doing this, except of course, that the people it will effect are in an even worse position than even the poorest in this country. That we like to be consider nice and left leaning as long as it benefits us at the expense of them. It's just another type of exploitation that we are continuing comparable to the empire days. Instead of raw resources it is instead people whilst we happily ignore the consequences on those that experience the consequences of it. If we don't have enough doctors then we need to consider why that is and make it a more attractive environment (such as not exploiting their working hours).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Personally I think the "private is best" ideology ran out of practicable steam with the privatisation of the railways under Major. Pretty much all the public-private partnerships or outsourcings since than have been bad.
Now with the imminent collapse of Northamptonshire Council -- run for years by Conservatives -- we can see that Conservatives are also unable to run public bodies properly.
Privatisation can work where there is real competition for optional products (e.g. the wargaming industry). It never works where there is a captive audience (trains, water, power). When things were privatised initially they were cheaper because generally public benefits were much better than private benefits (for example in the 90's local government would guarantee a pension whereas a business did not have to). Now however benefits are comparable if not worse for public bodies - e.g. many firms offer private health insurance and equivalent pension schemes. As such paying privately now means you pay more than the equivalent public body officer not only for the benefits the public officer doesn't get, but also that profit margin.
Speaking of which I see Amazon have paid a huge tax bill of £1.7m despite pre-tax profits tripling. That's the equivalent of 170 people on 30k per annum. I wish I could pay 2.5% tax (and this is before the morally questionable approach to allocating expenditure to offset tax, morally questionable employment practices etc). It is also a very good example of why high street stores are failing as they simply can't compete at this level. Despite assurances from government before they quite happily favour a corrupted tax system.
At one time people and companies both paid income tax on the same basis.
Then gradually special company taxes were introduced, which have led to the current situation in which the world's richest man has been able reach his position of pre-eminence by building a figurative pyramid of corpses of workers and small businesses to climb up.
The high street situation will correct itself. As the high street dies, so too business rates die. Eventually the govermnent will be forced actually to tax out of town businesses at a realistic rate.
As I've said before, the solution to the NHS doctor and nurse crisis is staring us in the face, and if Parliament grants me emergency authority, I'll dig out my passport and fix it this week.
Fill up a black bag full of visas, fly out to India, grab 50,000 doctors, jet them back, and problem solved.
This sort of view really annoys me. Nothing personal DINLT but effectively what you are proposing is to screw over people in another part of the world simply because they are "out or sight, out of mind". It's all very well doing this, except of course, that the people it will effect are in an even worse position than even the poorest in this country. That we like to be consider nice and left leaning as long as it benefits us at the expense of them. It's just another type of exploitation that we are continuing comparable to the empire days. Instead of raw resources it is instead people whilst we happily ignore the consequences on those that experience the consequences of it. If we don't have enough doctors then we need to consider why that is and make it a more attractive environment (such as not exploiting their working hours).
What I find interesting about DINLT's proposal, is that it's so laughably unworkable. Consider: the UK has roughly 1 doctor for every 235 people. Meanwhile, India has 1 doctor for every 1300-1700 people. And he thinks he is just going to wave a british passport in front of them and get them to instantly go to the UK?
That is without even going into the amount of selection required for such a ridiculous scheme, because you are going to want to select and check their background. After all, who can say that DINLT brings back actual doctors and nurses when he returns with planes full of Indians? Another question that is bound to come up: are said doctors and nurses properly qualified? If they need some additional education or training, who is going to pay for that? how long will that take? and how will that affect their employment contracts?
Or am I just being dumb and will this all magically sort itself the moment the planes touch the ground in merry ole England?
and beyond
off neighbour.
poor preparations the torys have put in place) damned if you don't (rejoin the 
