Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It's often overlooked that thousands of migrants are still trying to head to Europe from Africa, and across the Mediterranean. This is putting huge pressure on Greece and Italy.

We don't seem to hear about it anymore, and I've yet to see the EU produce a plan to tackle the problem.

Perhaps you don't have access to Google. it took me about 5 seconds to get these links about EU plans to tackle the problem.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38850380

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=EU+plan+to+reduce+migrants&rlz=1C1GGRV_enGB751GB752&oq=EU+plan+to+reduce+migrants&aqs=chrome..69i57.7167j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-1882_en.htm

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/804631/Migrant-crisis-EU-ministers-plan-move-European-border-Africa-Libya

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/refugee-crisis-migrants-libya-italy-europe-mediterranean-sea-eu-libya-deal-detention-camps-torture-a7718346.html

No disrespect Kilkrazy, but the EU's plan is about as useful as a chocolate fireguard!

200 millions Euros is a pitiful amount, and as the articles rightly point out, Libya is a mess with rival governments and bandits roaming the country with impunity.

The legally recognised government would struggle to close down a hot dog stand, never mind stop the people smugglers.

Yes, I'm aware that it was Britain and Cameron's bombing campaign that wrecked Libya, but I was dead against it from the beginning.

That wasn't your point or mine.

 reds8n wrote:

but there's times our current crop appear so shambolic one does start to sympathise somewhat with the idea that they're messing it up deliberately in some attempt to prevent the act from happening.

I have to assume they are; at least in as much as they know they have an impossible job and are stalling in the hope that something becomes easier for them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

But there are people out there, praying night and day for Brexit to fail, just so they can say I told you so

I don't think anyone is hoping that it'll fail so they can gloat. Plenty (including me) hope it'll fail so that we can quickly find something that works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Who was supporting the EU? The banks, big corporations, the political elites, the Tony Blairs of this world etc etc

That was reason enough for me to get the hell out.

God bless the working classes for taking a stand against that corporate racket in Brussels!

... but by voting out you're handing so much more power to the people you're presumably taking a stand against. The political elites and businesses in the UK are literally the only ones that'll benefit here. May's already hammering our rights and talking about things like weakening employment rights and business taxes further to make the UK more attractive to businesses. We've kickstarted a race to the bottom.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The Remain voice needs, and deserves to be heard. You may disagree, but I wish Remain supporters would come on board and help build the UK for the future challenges that lie ahead.

Whenever the Remain voice makes itself heard, it's shot down as trying to subvert the will of the people. Like the Gina Miller stuff - all she was insisting was that the law was upheld and that May had to get Parliamentary approval. Her and the judges that agreed with her were then branded, and I quote exactly "ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE" by the press.

You Brexiteers screwed all of us this up. Why the gak are you wanting us to step in and fix it for you? You already have our advice - don't do it.

Herzlos, when you have such an important issue as this, and when both sides are convinced they are right, then all you can do is let history be the judge.

It'll be 5, 10, maybe even 20 years before we know who was 'right.'

 Future War Cultist wrote:
But those elected officials are so easy to butter up aren't they? Tony Blair (the PM with the srinking majority) would have had us join the euro had Brown not stopped him. Then Brown went ahead and signed us up to the eu constitution without asking us. Brown the unelected PM. All you have to do is ensure that they have cushy jobs in the eu after they leave their respective parliaments and you can get them to agree to anything.

This is one reason why I voted to leave. I was tired of our representatives passing the buck up to the eu whilst argeeing to everything they proposed without consenting us. For me the Lisbon treaty was the straw that broke the camels back.

No, Brown did not sign us up without asking. The actual act of signing the treaty is just for show, it is not binding on the UK until it passes Parliament. Parliament got its say and said yes. We are a Parliamentary democracy, not a direct democracy. You, along with everybody else in the country, could have written to their MP to let them know their wishes in that regard.

Democracy is a form of government which requires active participation. You don't need to wait for the government to ask you, you can tell it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Yes, I'm aware that it was Britain and Cameron's bombing campaign that wrecked Libya, but I was dead against it from the beginning.

What wrecked Libya was a civil war. Libya was being torn apart either way. All the bombing campaign did was help to bring about a faster result. If we hadn't got involved it would have just ground on and on, as the Syrian Civil War has. End result is still thousands of people fleeing a war torn country. It is actually possible that if we had generated international support for more direct action, we might have even generated a better result. The circumstances were different enough compared to Iraq to have our involvement in a boots on the ground capacity in support of rebel groups actually generate support amongst the local populations which could give us sway in helping to then assist in the formation of a new government and consolidation of the rebel groups to try and prevent the splintering that occurred.


EDIT:

Nice to see that Theresa May is still keeping her eye on the vitally important things
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40948412
You can easily identify the people who have no fething clue about working in any kind of environment where you are exposed to noise and the risks involved.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-40941393


"We're going to leave the EU and reclaim our sovereignty!"

"Oh, but we still want all the benefits"


I'm not quite sure what they're thinking with this one.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-40941393


"We're going to leave the EU and reclaim our sovereignty!"

"Oh, but we still want all the benefits"


I'm not quite sure what they're thinking with this one.

It is interesting. Yesterday was 'we want to stay in the customs union for an extra 2 or 3 years, but during that time enjoy the benefits of being out of it', ie negotiate new trade deals. Today was 'we insist on taking back control of our borders, except the border with Ireland, where we want as few changes as possible, ideally none'.

If is nice that we finally see some sort of position, but I can't see either of these selling in Europe, makes me think Davis & co have decided the whole thing is a non starter, so propose stuff that sounds reasonable but will be rejected, then blame the EU when that occurs.

Or of course, the EU agree to everything, and Brexit is a huge success.

The Ireland border is turning into a big deal, which actually ought not be a surprise given that it will be a 310 mile long land border with 200 crossing points between the UK and the EU.

The UK Gov released a position paper today which has at the least given some kind of view into the government's thinking about this issue. It is a key issue because of what I mentioned above, and because the EU have put it down as one of the negotiating points to be resolved before talks can begin on trade relations.

Predictably, no-one has said the UK Gov paper is the acme of marvellous solutions. In truth it is difficult to see how the UK can maintain a soft border with Eire because it would be a backdoor into the EU. From that angle you can understand the EU are nervous about it.

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
The people I feel sorry for are the people who weren't entitled to vote. I have a friend, a British citizen, who wasn't eligible to vote in the referendum because he was living and working in Germany at the time. He was furious. Partly because of the result, but most because, as he sees it, his rights as an EU citizen are being taken away from him without him even having a say in it.

Then perhaps he should seek German citizenship.

So the government's position is still at "have cake and eat it" but with more words?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
The people I feel sorry for are the people who weren't entitled to vote. I have a friend, a British citizen, who wasn't eligible to vote in the referendum because he was living and working in Germany at the time. He was furious. Partly because of the result, but most because, as he sees it, his rights as an EU citizen are being taken away from him without him even having a say in it.

Then perhaps he should seek German citizenship.

And that would help a disenfranchised British citizen how, exactly?

 King Henry VIII wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
The people I feel sorry for are the people who weren't entitled to vote. I have a friend, a British citizen, who wasn't eligible to vote in the referendum because he was living and working in Germany at the time. He was furious. Partly because of the result, but most because, as he sees it, his rights as an EU citizen are being taken away from him without him even having a say in it.

Then perhaps he should seek German citizenship.

And that would help a disenfranchised British citizen how, exactly?

A secure future in the country he has chosen to live and work in?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 King Henry VIII wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
The people I feel sorry for are the people who weren't entitled to vote. I have a friend, a British citizen, who wasn't eligible to vote in the referendum because he was living and working in Germany at the time. He was furious. Partly because of the result, but most because, as he sees it, his rights as an EU citizen are being taken away from him without him even having a say in it.

Then perhaps he should seek German citizenship.

And that would help a disenfranchised British citizen how, exactly?

A secure future in the country he has chosen to live and work in?

Which is great, but does nothing to address his main point of contention.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
The people I feel sorry for are the people who weren't entitled to vote. I have a friend, a British citizen, who wasn't eligible to vote in the referendum because he was living and working in Germany at the time. He was furious. Partly because of the result, but most because, as he sees it, his rights as an EU citizen are being taken away from him without him even having a say in it.

Then perhaps he should seek German citizenship.

Have you any idea how difficult that is? I was born there and yet I can't get German citizenship (looked into it as soon as the wrexit result was announced).

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 King Henry VIII wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
The people I feel sorry for are the people who weren't entitled to vote. I have a friend, a British citizen, who wasn't eligible to vote in the referendum because he was living and working in Germany at the time. He was furious. Partly because of the result, but most because, as he sees it, his rights as an EU citizen are being taken away from him without him even having a say in it.

Then perhaps he should seek German citizenship.

And that would help a disenfranchised British citizen how, exactly?

A secure future in the country he has chosen to live and work in?

He's worked all over Europe, including the UK, because he was able to and worked in a field that enabled him to do a few years here, a few years there. Now that right to looking like it could go and he had no say in the matter. Nor did EU citizens living in the U.K. When you start to think about it, the vote actually starts to feel a little rigged.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Predictably, no-one has said the UK Gov paper is the acme of marvellous solutions. In truth it is difficult to see how the UK can maintain a soft border with Eire because it would be a backdoor into the EU. From that angle you can understand the EU are nervous about it.

Not just the EU, it seems.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/eu-migrants-brexit-ireland-border_uk_5994240ce4b0e789a948370a?utm_hp_ref=uk

It's just not workable. Border or no border, but "we'll pretend there is one, but not really" will never work.

Actually there was a soft border in Ireland for decades, until the Troubles forced it to be closed down. At that time, though neither Eire nor the UK were members of the EU (which didn't actually exist at the.)

The problem now is whether it is possible to have an open border there, while Eire is part of the EU and Northern Ireland isn't.

Perhaps the solution would be to bring the EU/UK border to the mainland of Britain. This would mean disruption for people and goods moving between mainland UK and NI, but this volume of movement might be less than the movement over the Irish border.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Not having a go at you, but this logic can be annoying sometimes.

If something bad happens, it's Brexit.

If something good happens, it's because Brexit hasn't happened yet.

Well gee. Brexit HASN'T happened so crediting it for good things is flat out lying. Cannot have positive effect when it hasn't happened. See how your exports(which you were already caught about LYING. your creditibility is flat out zero since you provenly invent stuff up) deal when you are out of free market.

Also economics are up everywhere and things rarely have immediate effect. You are benefitting from what started taking place BEFORE brexit. Just like finnish goverment is being dishonest how their actions are only reason finish economy is recovering when root cause has started even before they stepped in power you are being dishonest here.

Or Trump claiming how his actions have been so good when he's just reaping delayed effects of precursors.

Frankly not surprised. Leavers are happy to invent their own narrative and ignore facts so no surprise it continues with you.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Perhaps the solution would be to bring the EU/UK border to the mainland of Britain. This would mean disruption for people and goods moving between mainland UK and NI, but this volume of movement might be less than the movement over the Irish border.

I think that's the only real solution. I don't know how it'd be implemented though; would NI be British but outside the border? Would it rejoin Eire in the EU? Would Eire join NI outside the EU?

I think only the latter 2 are workable, though I don't know what the political desire for reunification is. Keeping it British but outside the border will be a legislative nightmare.

GoatboyBeta wrote:
So the government's position is still at "have cake and eat it" but with more words?

Seeing they and leavers as a whole are under delusion that's going to work no surprise. Wonder what they say when reality hits on them

Herzlos wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Perhaps the solution would be to bring the EU/UK border to the mainland of Britain. This would mean disruption for people and goods moving between mainland UK and NI, but this volume of movement might be less than the movement over the Irish border.

I think that's the only real solution. I don't know how it'd be implemented though; would NI be British but outside the border? Would it rejoin Eire in the EU? Would Eire join NI outside the EU?

I think only the latter 2 are workable, though I don't know what the political desire for reunification is. Keeping it British but outside the border will be a legislative nightmare.

Right at the moment no option is workable.

The only option that will keep the NI government working is no visible boarder restrictions between Eire and NI between NI and the mainland UK . Put a boarder between NI and Eire and the nationalists will see it as an attempt to split Ireland. The removal of a boarder was key to the peace process. Put boarder control between NI and the mainland and the Unionists will see it as a step towards a united Ireland. This will cause issues for the peace process and the DUP will pull out of the government and we will have another election.

The third plan basically goes "seamless boarder something something tagging goods something ANPR computer stuff STOP TRYING TO DERAIL BREXIT YOU REMOANERS!".

Blimey. It's like the same four pages of somewhat miserable arguing on Brexit keep copypasting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40952205

In other UK news, Argos has been caught with their pants down paying under minimum wage and fined for it. Frankly, I think their punishment is pitifully low for such a large corporation. It really does seem that in contemporary Western economies, large companies can break the law freely, pay tiny (comparatively) fines, and executives always pass the buck and walk free. White collar crime does far more damage than some bloke breaking into a car to steal a wallet, but the latter seems to be treated far more harshly.

Herzlos wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Perhaps the solution would be to bring the EU/UK border to the mainland of Britain. This would mean disruption for people and goods moving between mainland UK and NI, but this volume of movement might be less than the movement over the Irish border.

I think that's the only real solution. I don't know how it'd be implemented though; would NI be British but outside the border? Would it rejoin Eire in the EU? Would Eire join NI outside the EU?

I think only the latter 2 are workable, though I don't know what the political desire for reunification is. Keeping it British but outside the border will be a legislative nightmare.

In effect NI would be British but outside the border. If you wanted to travel to/from NI and mainland UK, you would need a passport or other ID, but you wouldn't need to present these documents at the NI/Eire border. This would be a similar status to the Channel Islands or Gibraltar. It works because the sea is a physical boundary.

I'm assuming the volume of movement across the land border is much greater than the volume of movement across the sea/air border. I've read that 30,000 people commute daily between NI and Eire for jobs.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Actually there was a soft border in Ireland for decades, until the Troubles forced it to be closed down. At that time, though neither Eire nor the UK were members of the EU (which didn't actually exist at the.)

The problem now is whether it is possible to have an open border there, while Eire is part of the EU and Northern Ireland isn't.

Perhaps the solution would be to bring the EU/UK border to the mainland of Britain. This would mean disruption for people and goods moving between mainland UK and NI, but this volume of movement might be less than the movement over the Irish border.

Yes, but now the RoI is in the EU that solution doesn't work anymore.

Your proposal is the one Taoiseach Varadkar made, one which was automatically dismissed by the DUP.
.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/28/dublin-pushes-irish-sea-new-border-uk-brexit/

tneva82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Not having a go at you, but this logic can be annoying sometimes.

If something bad happens, it's Brexit.

If something good happens, it's because Brexit hasn't happened yet.

Well gee. Brexit HASN'T happened so crediting it for good things is flat out lying. Cannot have positive effect when it hasn't happened. See how your exports(which you were already caught about LYING. your creditibility is flat out zero since you provenly invent stuff up) deal when you are out of free market.

Also economics are up everywhere and things rarely have immediate effect. You are benefitting from what started taking place BEFORE brexit. Just like finnish goverment is being dishonest how their actions are only reason finish economy is recovering when root cause has started even before they stepped in power you are being dishonest here.

Or Trump claiming how his actions have been so good when he's just reaping delayed effects of precursors.

Frankly not surprised. Leavers are happy to invent their own narrative and ignore facts so no surprise it continues with you.

The point I failed to make was that some people want to have it both ways. Anything bad happens is because of Brexit, and anything good happens has to be because Brexit hasn't happened yet i.e there is no way in their mind that leaving the EU can ever be a good thing, so praise is either grudging or non-existent.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I fully expect everybody to disagree with me, but I think Britain has out manouvered the EU on the Irish border issue.

Britain is bending over backwards to promote the idea of no borders, but it's the EU who are saying borders might be needed.

If this issue breaks down, Britain could be seen to be the 'good' guy, and the EU the 'baddies'

I think it will play well with a Middle England audience.

I'm not saying it's right, but I suspect Britain has moved to occupy the moral high ground if things go downhill, and my gut instinct tells me there is a good chance of this happening.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


The point I failed to make was that some people want to have it both ways. Anything bad happens is because of Brexit, and anything good happens has to be because Brexit hasn't happened yet i.e there is no way in their mind that leaving the EU can ever be a good thing, so praise is either grudging or non-existent.

Not quite. I've not heard of anything good about Brexit yet because any good things (where they exist) haven't happened yet. Same with the bad things.
There are some bad things that can be directly attributed to Brexit (like banks moving staff to the EU, EU agencies leaving London, the GBP value), but there have (as of yet) been no good things directly attributed to Brexit.

There's been lots of good things happening, and they are universally held up by Brexiteers going "look! It's not all bad!". A lot of them haven't held up to much scrutiny (like exports increasing when they haven't).

I fully expect everybody to disagree with me, but I think Britain has out manouvered the EU on the Irish border issue.

Britain is bending over backwards to promote the idea of no borders, but it's the EU who are saying borders might be needed.

If this issue breaks down, Britain could be seen to be the 'good' guy, and the EU the 'baddies'

I think it will play well with a Middle England audience.

I'm not saying it's right, but I suspect Britain has moved to occupy the moral high ground if things go downhill, and my gut instinct tells me there is a good chance of this happening.

You'd be right, I disagree with you. There's a lot of effort to try and frame the UK as being the good guy, so we can play the underdog and blame the EU when it doesn't work. That's always going to happen.

I don't see how we're playing them into a corner. We asked for borders, but are also asking for no borders. It's pretty gobsmackingly obvious that if we don't want free movement, we need a border between the UK and the EU. If we don't want free trade, then we need a border between the UK and the EU.

If we have a soft border at any point, then it automatically becomes a back door into the EU - which neither us (all those foreigners!) and them (risk of us being used to bypass trade conditions/taxes/standards by importing via the UK).

Whilst you think we're doing a great job of promoting open borders (when the Leave campaign was predominantly about closing them), how the gak do you think they'll actually work?

Thankfully, there's a lot of goodwill on all sides to try and reach a solution to the Irish border problem, so it can be done.

Just don't ask me for details

That being said, and I'm no expert on this, Norway (non-EU) shares a long border with Sweden (EU member) and that seems to run smoothly.

Would it be possible to replicate the Norway/Sweden model?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


That being said, and I'm no expert on this, Norway (non-EU) shares a long border with Sweden (EU member) and that seems to run smoothly.

Would it be possible to replicate the Norway/Sweden model?

Norway is in the EFTA. Free movement of goods and people between Norway and the EU.

jouso wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


That being said, and I'm no expert on this, Norway (non-EU) shares a long border with Sweden (EU member) and that seems to run smoothly.

Would it be possible to replicate the Norway/Sweden model?

Norway is in the EFTA. Free movement of goods and people between Norway and the EU.

This was actually hilarious

Herzlos wrote:


I don't see how we're playing them into a corner. We asked for borders, but are also asking for no borders. It's pretty gobsmackingly obvious that if we don't want free movement, we need a border between the UK and the EU. If we don't want free trade, then we need a border between the UK and the EU.

If we have a soft border at any point, then it automatically becomes a back door into the EU - which neither us (all those foreigners!) and them (risk of us being used to bypass trade conditions/taxes/standards by importing via the UK).

Whilst you think we're doing a great job of promoting open borders (when the Leave campaign was predominantly about closing them), how the gak do you think they'll actually work?

Precisely. The UK voted for Brexit ostensibly because they wanted to regulate their borders, because they didn't trust the EU in doing so.

Now suddenly they do?

There's no cake and eat it scenario here. Put the border on the sea (as per Irish proposal) and the DUP and other unionists will fume, put a hard border and the republicans will riot. Keep people and stuff freely flowing and the whole corps of leavers will demand May's head. Someone will feel deeply wronged no matter the outcome. And it's not like May has rock-solid support.