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.
It's all very well you personally being blase about the Republic of Ireland but the 300 mile land border cannot be ignored and the linked history (of the Troubles, etc) creates a situation demands proper consideration of things.
Except we have said what we want - yes the EU has said no, but we have stated how we would like that to work
The UK has said they want seamless trade and a magic-eye invisible border for people.
Is that free trade and free movement? Because that's the opposite of what the Brexit vote meant.
Clearly you didn't follow the referendum.
Brexit was all about free trade, indeed it was a driving point of the leave side that outside of the EU we could strike far more free trade deals than we could inside of it, the UK position outside of the EU is far more in favour of free trade than the EU is.
As for free movement, there is a clear difference here - feel free to come to England, only the extreme far right have any issue with this, but restrict the rights to live/work/claim benefits/access free health care - something that isn't allowed within the EU. If someone from Ireland (or Spain, France, Poland, etc) wants to come to England and visit the sites or buy things then feel free, if they want to come to work or take advantage of our free healthcare system then outside the EU we can stop them.
Having the freedom to travel into a country without being stopped at the border is a massively different thing to what the EU considers 'free movement', to claim otherwise is simply wrong. Since they won't have a National Insurance Number, needed to get a job/buy or rent a house or claim benefits - and outside the EU we can say that they cannot have a National Insurance number we can control all that fairly easy.
And the EU will give the UK free trade and movement in exchange for what exactly? In the words of Macron, the EU is not a supermarket where you can pick and choose the bits you want. If you want to use the club pool you still have to pay the dues.
But of course the UKcould expel or refuse to pay benefits to EU migrants. They just chose not to and blamed the EU for that.
Free trade in exchange for the fact it is beneficial for both sides - or is free trade suddenly bad if it's not initiat3d by the EU?
As I said, We don't want the EU version of free movement, we just want to not have a hard border - in exchange for that the EU can help prevent the trouble of the past with the IRA and unionist, or are you saying that the EU would be happy to see a return to the trouble? If it is I'm not sure it's an organisation we want to be part of.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's all very well you personally being blase about the Republic of Ireland but the 300 mile land border cannot be ignored and the linked history (of the Troubles, etc) creates a situation demands proper consideration of things.
There's a lot of good will on both sides, and more importantly, the desire is there to get a deal and avoid the troubles of the past.
I'm confident that a deal can be cobbled together that will suit both sides.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Da Boss wrote: Well, I hope you can see equally why as a non-British person, I don't much care how you get treated in return.
I understand and respect that viewpoint.
I've always considered nations like the Republic of Ireland and the USA to be close friends and allies, but I never forget that at the end of the day, they are foreigners...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Da Boss wrote: I'm a passionate pro-European federalist precisely because I want to break down distinctions like that, so this all makes me sad and, yeah, angry.
Precisely on your side here.
I'm sure DINLT's mindset is very common throughout the world, though, and certainly not "bad" or "wrong" or anything of the like - but, by necessity, it will also be very present with the EU officials debating the Brexit process. They will also do what is best for the EU, and will now view the UK as a foreign country, something which some Brexit supporters here seem to decry - even though it's simply returning the favor.
Da Boss wrote: I'm a passionate pro-European federalist precisely because I want to break down distinctions like that, so this all makes me sad and, yeah, angry.
Can you not see how that clashes with your previous comment:
Da Boss wrote: Well, I hope you can see equally why as a non-British person, I don't much care how you get treated in return.
You want us all to draw closer together, but you don't care how we get treated? That a fair old dichotomy.
I voted remain, and I still think brexit will feth us short and long term, but that dichotomy is exactly why a lot of people wanted out of the EU, the perception that the EU wanted us in, but not for our sake but theirs.
Da Boss wrote: I'm a passionate pro-European federalist precisely because I want to break down distinctions like that, so this all makes me sad and, yeah, angry.
Precisely on your side here.
I'm sure DINLT's mindset is very common throughout the world, though, and certainly not "bad" or "wrong" or anything of the like - but, by necessity, it will also be very present with the EU officials debating the Brexit process. They will also do what is best for the EU, and will now view the UK as a foreign country, something which some Brexit supporters here seem to decry - even though it's simply returning the favor.
I have no problem with the EU doing what's best for the EU in these negotiations or treating Britain as a foreign country.
I like Europe and Europeans, and I hope we will continue to be close friends and trading partners, and cooperate on defence and the environment. I've never had a problem with that.
It's the United States of Europe that has always made me suspicious.
And another point, in the unlikely event that the Republic of Ireland was ever invaded by the Russians or the North Koreas, I'd want British troops defending Ireland for 3 reasons:
1. Historic debt we owe Ireland for Irishmen fighting for Britain in 2 world wars.
2. Because they are close friends and allies (even though they're not in NATO)
3. Because it would be in Britain's strategic interest to defend Ireland, as Britain would probably be next.
Why have I used such a strange scenario as an example?
Because ultimately, nation states have to act in their own interests. If Britain were ever invaded, I'd expect Irish troops defending Britain for the sole reason that an attack on Britain would ultimately threaten Ireland.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: I'm a passionate pro-European federalist precisely because I want to break down distinctions like that, so this all makes me sad and, yeah, angry.
I've never denied that the EU hasn't done some good, but the direction the EU is heading in is not for me.
And let's be honest, Britain has always ben the odd man out in Europe. It's probably for the best if we go our own way.
As long as the respect and cooperation remains there between Britain and the EU, we'll all be fine.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/01 14:39:10
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Yes but we know the EUs position already, it is open borders and free movement.
That is their position on countries within the EU. It is not their position on a Britain outside of the EU. What sort of immigration relationship they want to have with us after that is as much their bailiwick as it is ours.
Why would they want a change? Everything works fine now as it is for the UK and the EU. The EU were and are quite happy with open movement for all EU citizens (including UK citizens). That's not going to change because of a divisive vote in the UK. They didn't vote for the change, there is no need for the change and UK citizens are still free to come and go as they see fit. The EUs position is therefore "no change". It is hence for the UK to define if it wants to change this. If the UK wisely decided that free movement isn't an issue and didn't bring it to the table then there would wisely be no change for either party and nothing to discuss.
Except that isn't what happens if they don't get a deal. It's not a case that no deal means it stays as it currently is - no deal means an end to what is now and possibly a hard border, they therefore do need to come up with other suggestions.
And in all fairness we have come up with a suggestion, free movement for Irish nationals, and an electronic border. Now the EU may not like that (indeed it probably doesn't for the reason that it treats Irish citizens different to other EU citizens) but if they don't like our offer then they need to work with us to make a better one - not simply say 'go away and re do it' for the exact reason you state they shouldn't go off and come up with stacks of paper on something we might not want to change - Without their input we cannot be sure that our next offer won't be just as unacceptable as this one
Irish nationals will presumably need to prove their status in order to get this free movement? Does that count as free?
The revolution is already under way. Government departments have been told that if they can find anything that merely requires secondary legislation — which either appears on the Commons Order Paper without debate, or goes to a small committee with a government majority of loyal MPs for the lightest possible scrutiny — then they should go ahead and do it. Secondary legislation is supposed to be for the details that MPs don’t need to spend hours debating in the chamber, like the location of a road or the precise rate at which a benefit is increased. But governments of all hues abuse the opportunity to avoid a row, and can sneak past big, controversial policies with minimal debate.
That's partly what differentiates acts of parliament to statutory instruments. The former have a significant and well-understood process to their passage. Multiple stages of debate and revision through both houses of parliament, combined with public awareness and usually involvement.
It's hardly a guarantee that all law will be exemplary, but this level of scrutiny certainly helps.
By contrast, a statutory instrument is, as parliament’s own website explains, "a form of legislation which allow[s] the provisions of an act of parliament to be subsequently brought into force or altered without parliament having to pass a new act". Primary legislation is intended to set out general principles, leaving it up to ministers and their civil servants to fill in the gaps.
Statutory instrument are categorised as either negative or affirmative instruments. In either case, they're published online and made available in the Commons library, but in the case of a negative instrument it becomes law unless it is rejected on a resolution of either House. Affirmative instruments require a positive vote in favour. In either case, no amendment is allowed: statutory instruments pass or fall as a whole.
Needless to say, they are very popular with our legislators. Throughout the entirety of the last Labour government, statutory instruments averaged a little under 1,900 per year, with the total count rarely topping 2,000.
Since 2010, they've been running at over 3,000 a year, with 2014 posting 3,423.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Except we have said what we want - yes the EU has said no, but we have stated how we would like that to work
The UK has said they want seamless trade and a magic-eye invisible border for people.
Is that free trade and free movement? Because that's the opposite of what the Brexit vote meant.
At the same time they also want harsh immigration controls stopping those "dirty foreigners taking UK jobs" or "overloading the NHS and education system" etc. So they want to put in heavy handed checks on the people coming in to the country and a hard border whilst not being stuck with EU legislation (that they will have to if they want seamless trade). When you look at these sort of contradictions it is easy to see why the EU is frustrated. The UK government is asking for things that are the polar opposite to each other but expect the EU to be able to implement. In the end it's political nonsense run by a group of clowns.
I've always considered nations like the Republic of Ireland and the USA to be close friends and allies, but I never forget that at the end of the day, they are foreigners...
You realise of course this is the root of all bigotry and racism. That for some reason a person born on a different rock is somehow different to someone born on another rock; rather than looking at the individual they are your views of them a filtered by which side of the line they happened to arrive on. The feeling that because someone wasn't born on one side of a line that was determined only a handful of hundreds of years ago (generally through people stabbing or shooting each other) makes them 'foreign' and viewed with less respect as to what happens to them. We all were born on this planet not because we are British/German/North Korean/etc but because of the vagaries of quantum fluctuations throughout the lifetime of the universe. Are you seriously suggesting that if a mother gave birth to a child at the NI border that child with the same potential should be viewed differently depending on whether the mother made one step to the left or right? Because that is what you are saying...
The revolution is already under way. Government departments have been told that if they can find anything that merely requires secondary legislation — which either appears on the Commons Order Paper without debate, or goes to a small committee with a government majority of loyal MPs for the lightest possible scrutiny — then they should go ahead and do it. Secondary legislation is supposed to be for the details that MPs don’t need to spend hours debating in the chamber, like the location of a road or the precise rate at which a benefit is increased. But governments of all hues abuse the opportunity to avoid a row, and can sneak past big, controversial policies with minimal debate.
Unfortunately our politicians haven't learnt from the past that the only outcome from removing the people that put them there from the decision making process is a revolution where the masses rise up and string them up! It's sad to see that our politicians are so keen to benefit themselves that they will happily run rough shod over what democracy is really about.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/01 17:21:54
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
I've always considered nations like the Republic of Ireland and the USA to be close friends and allies, but I never forget that at the end of the day, they are foreigners...
You realise of course this is the root of all bigotry and racism. That for some reason a person born on a different rock is somehow different to someone born on another rock; rather than looking at the individual they are your views of them a filtered by which side of the line they happened to arrive on. The feeling that because someone wasn't born on one side of a line that was determined only a handful of hundreds of years ago (generally through people stabbing or shooting each other) makes them 'foreign' and viewed with less respect as to what happens to them. We all were born on this planet not because we are British/German/North Korean/etc but because of the vagaries of quantum fluctuations throughout the lifetime of the universe. Are you seriously suggesting that if a mother gave birth to a child at the NI border that child with the same potential should be viewed differently depending on whether the mother made one step to the left or right? Because that is what you are saying...
I have to agree. The opinion DINLT seems to be expressing here actually makes me pretty bloody angry. I thought he was talking rubbish before, especially about the intra-national unions and collaborations of this time, the UK, EU and NATO, but I'm afraid he's started to cross the line. I have many Irish family members, and this whole begotten exercise is going to directly affect them quite badly, not with standing if any sort of border reignites the troubles and we end up with people being hurt or even losing their lives because of this idiotic, nationalistic bollocks.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/01 18:16:41
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
As somebody who was growing up in 1980s Britain when the IRA were bombing British cities, let me make myself absoluetly clear:
I DO NOT WANT VIOLENCE AND TROUBLE AGAIN IN NORTHERN IRELAND!
God knows I had enough of it back then.
Making the point that nations should act in their own interests be the British, be they from the Republic, does not make one a warmonger.
Believing in the nation state does not make one a bigot or a racist. By that logic, there are billions of racists on Planet Earth, becuase we have over 150 sovereign nations in existence.
Should we tell the USA to tear up the declaration of independence or Greece to revert back to Sparta and Athens, or Germany to return to the days of the Hanseatic league? Of course not.
The idea that if Britian leaves the EU, the Irish will start blowing themselves up, is one I would find insulting if I were Irish. It makes them look like petulant children, which they are not!
It's up there with WW3 breaking out if the EU didn't exist.
Where is the faith in people to determine their own destiny through peaceful means? Sadly lacking by the sounds of it!
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...The idea that if Britian leaves the EU, the Irish will start blowing themselves up, is one I would find insulting if I were Irish. It makes them look like petulant children, which they are not!
It's up there with WW3 breaking out if the EU didn't exist.
Where is the faith in people to determine their own destiny through peaceful means? Sadly lacking by the sounds of it!
You clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The peace process may have put the tensions on simmer, but they are still there. It would take a few Ill considered actions and words, and the last 20 years could unravel.
We knew that the Irish border would be a hugely contentious issue, yet enough people like you simply did not care about it to even consider it when making your decision. You've stated that much in your position on "foreigners".
Ireland maybe a separate nation state, but that does not mean we shouldn't give a gak about them. They are tied as closely to us in many ways as Scotland and Wales is to England. If you treated, and spoke about, your friends and family in this way, you'd swiftly be lacking in either.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/01 19:47:13
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
At the same time they also want harsh immigration controls stopping those "dirty foreigners taking UK jobs" or "overloading the NHS and education system" etc. So they want to put in heavy handed checks on the people coming in to the country and a hard border whilst not being stuck with EU legislation (that they will have to if they want seamless trade). When you look at these sort of contradictions it is easy to see why the EU is frustrated. The UK government is asking for things that are the polar opposite to each other but expect the EU to be able to implement. In the end it's political nonsense run by a group of clowns.
Except it's the EU wanting a hard border, we offered a very reasonable solution without a hard border, and if the EU negotiated we'd probably have agreed to allow it to be open to anyone to visit, just not work or live - but they don't want that so instead claim we havn't come up with an option at all.
And as far as heavy handed - if you think making sure that you are not a criminal and that the skills you are bringing will help our economy is heavy handed then I suggest you spend a little time trying to emigrate to a country with real heavy handed checks.
Also, why do you assume that trade means we have to be under their law? That's pretty ,much an invention of the EU - sure they can say what we sell there needs to meet they laws, that's reasonable and we'd probably do the same, but ALL laws? That's just a ridiculous suggestion.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...The idea that if Britian leaves the EU, the Irish will start blowing themselves up, is one I would find insulting if I were Irish. It makes them look like petulant children, which they are not!
It's up there with WW3 breaking out if the EU didn't exist.
Where is the faith in people to determine their own destiny through peaceful means? Sadly lacking by the sounds of it!
You clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The peace process may have put the tensions on simmer, but they are still there. It would take a few Ill considered actions and words, and the last 20 years could unravel.
We knew that the Irish border would be a hugely contentious issue, yet enough people like you simply did not care about it to even consider it when making your decision. You've stated that much in your position on "foreigners".
Ireland maybe a separate nation state, but that does not mean we shouldn't give a gak about them. They are tied as closely to us in many ways as Scotland and Wales is to England. If you treated, and spoke about, your friends and family in this way, you'd swiftly be lacking in either.
Which is why it is in everyones interests to get a deal sorted, so why is it remainers feel like it's something that the UK should be paying for when a solution is just as beneficial to the EU as it is to us?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/01 19:16:17
Free trade in exchange for the fact it is beneficial for both sides - or is free trade suddenly bad if it's not initiat3d by the EU?
As I said, We don't want the EU version of free movement, we just want to not have a hard border.
I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing. For example I can travel to Ukraine but I'm not allowed to take up employment and only stay for X days. Which pretty much fits your previous definition of soft border.
This means my passport is checked on entry. Doesn't matter if I fly to Kiev or drive from Poland. Is that soft enough?
Because I can't think of a single border crossing that doesn't involve some sort of document checking, unless there's free movement involved (either within the EU, EU-EFTA, etc)
Especially if there's no free movement of goods. Nowadays you can smuggle thousands of pounds worth of goods (electronics, meds, etc) on your personal luggage. Don't you think smuggling would be rife on such a soft border of free movement of people doesn't come with free movement of goods?
At the same time they also want harsh immigration controls stopping those "dirty foreigners taking UK jobs" or "overloading the NHS and education system" etc. So they want to put in heavy handed checks on the people coming in to the country and a hard border whilst not being stuck with EU legislation (that they will have to if they want seamless trade). When you look at these sort of contradictions it is easy to see why the EU is frustrated. The UK government is asking for things that are the polar opposite to each other but expect the EU to be able to implement. In the end it's political nonsense run by a group of clowns.
Except it's the EU wanting a hard border, we offered a very reasonable solution without a hard border, and if the EU negotiated we'd probably have agreed to allow it to be open to anyone to visit, just not work or live - but they don't want that so instead claim we havn't come up with an option at all....
Apparently the EU, which wants freedom of movement, wants a hard border, while the UK, which wants complete autonomy of restrictions to movement, wants a completely soft border.
You don't want to be in the EU, so you don't want a soft border. One of your reasons for resigning from the EU is that you don't like EU's soft borders, yet now you're in favour of a soft border. Or a hard border. I don't know. I've completely lost track of the cognitive somersaults you're going through.
At the same time they also want harsh immigration controls stopping those "dirty foreigners taking UK jobs" or "overloading the NHS and education system" etc. So they want to put in heavy handed checks on the people coming in to the country and a hard border whilst not being stuck with EU legislation (that they will have to if they want seamless trade). When you look at these sort of contradictions it is easy to see why the EU is frustrated. The UK government is asking for things that are the polar opposite to each other but expect the EU to be able to implement. In the end it's political nonsense run by a group of clowns.
Except it's the EU wanting a hard border, we offered a very reasonable solution without a hard border, and if the EU negotiated we'd probably have agreed to allow it to be open to anyone to visit, just not work or live - but they don't want that so instead claim we havn't come up with an option at all.
And as far as heavy handed - if you think making sure that you are not a criminal and that the skills you are bringing will help our economy is heavy handed then I suggest you spend a little time trying to emigrate to a country with real heavy handed checks.
Also, why do you assume that trade means we have to be under their law? That's pretty ,much an invention of the EU - sure they can say what we sell there needs to meet they laws, that's reasonable and we'd probably do the same, but ALL laws? That's just a ridiculous suggestion.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...The idea that if Britian leaves the EU, the Irish will start blowing themselves up, is one I would find insulting if I were Irish. It makes them look like petulant children, which they are not!
It's up there with WW3 breaking out if the EU didn't exist.
Where is the faith in people to determine their own destiny through peaceful means? Sadly lacking by the sounds of it!
You clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The peace process may have put the tensions on simmer, but they are still there. It would take a few Ill considered actions and words, and the last 20 years could unravel.
We knew that the Irish border would be a hugely contentious issue, yet enough people like you simply did not care about it to even consider it when making your decision. You've stated that much in your position on "foreigners".
Ireland maybe a separate nation state, but that does not mean we shouldn't give a gak about them. They are tied as closely to us in many ways as Scotland and Wales is to England. If you treated, and spoke about, your friends and family in this way, you'd swiftly be lacking in either.
Which is why it is in everyones interests to get a deal sorted, so why is it remainers feel like it's something that the UK should be paying for when a solution is just as beneficial to the EU as it is to us?
Because the EU is not responsible for this, and we know their position on EU membership, because we helped create it. The onus is on the UK to come up with a solution to the problem that Leave has created. So, here you go, it's your mess, what are you going to do about it?
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
At the same time they also want harsh immigration controls stopping those "dirty foreigners taking UK jobs" or "overloading the NHS and education system" etc. So they want to put in heavy handed checks on the people coming in to the country and a hard border whilst not being stuck with EU legislation (that they will have to if they want seamless trade). When you look at these sort of contradictions it is easy to see why the EU is frustrated. The UK government is asking for things that are the polar opposite to each other but expect the EU to be able to implement. In the end it's political nonsense run by a group of clowns.
Except it's the EU wanting a hard border, we offered a very reasonable solution without a hard border, and if the EU negotiated we'd probably have agreed to allow it to be open to anyone to visit, just not work or live - but they don't want that so instead claim we havn't come up with an option at all....
Apparently the EU, which wants freedom of movement, wants a hard border, while the UK, which wants complete autonomy of restrictions to movement, wants a completely soft border.
You don't want to be in the EU, so you don't want a soft border. One of your reasons for resigning from the EU is that you don't like EU's soft borders, yet now you're in favour of a soft border. Or a hard border. I don't know. I've completely lost track of the cognitive somersaults you're going through.
Then I suggest you take some time and read what I've actually said rather than what you wish I'd have said.
At no point have I ever said I want a hard border with NI, that way leads back to the troubles and it's In everyone's interest (both the UK and the eu) to avoid that. Indeed I even said I'd be happy to see the 'no checks on Irish nationals' extended to all EU nationals, as we could control what people were actually bothered about with immigration (mainly to do with jobs) via other methods once we are out of the EU.
I don't want the EU 'free movement' this isn't the same as a soft border.
At the same time they also want harsh immigration controls stopping those "dirty foreigners taking UK jobs" or "overloading the NHS and education system" etc. So they want to put in heavy handed checks on the people coming in to the country and a hard border whilst not being stuck with EU legislation (that they will have to if they want seamless trade). When you look at these sort of contradictions it is easy to see why the EU is frustrated. The UK government is asking for things that are the polar opposite to each other but expect the EU to be able to implement. In the end it's political nonsense run by a group of clowns.
Except it's the EU wanting a hard border, we offered a very reasonable solution without a hard border, and if the EU negotiated we'd probably have agreed to allow it to be open to anyone to visit, just not work or live - but they don't want that so instead claim we havn't come up with an option at all.
And as far as heavy handed - if you think making sure that you are not a criminal and that the skills you are bringing will help our economy is heavy handed then I suggest you spend a little time trying to emigrate to a country with real heavy handed checks.
Also, why do you assume that trade means we have to be under their law? That's pretty ,much an invention of the EU - sure they can say what we sell there needs to meet they laws, that's reasonable and we'd probably do the same, but ALL laws? That's just a ridiculous suggestion.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...The idea that if Britian leaves the EU, the Irish will start blowing themselves up, is one I would find insulting if I were Irish. It makes them look like petulant children, which they are not!
It's up there with WW3 breaking out if the EU didn't exist.
Where is the faith in people to determine their own destiny through peaceful means? Sadly lacking by the sounds of it!
You clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The peace process may have put the tensions on simmer, but they are still there. It would take a few Ill considered actions and words, and the last 20 years could unravel.
We knew that the Irish border would be a hugely contentious issue, yet enough people like you simply did not care about it to even consider it when making your decision. You've stated that much in your position on "foreigners".
Ireland maybe a separate nation state, but that does not mean we shouldn't give a gak about them. They are tied as closely to us in many ways as Scotland and Wales is to England. If you treated, and spoke about, your friends and family in this way, you'd swiftly be lacking in either.
Which is why it is in everyones interests to get a deal sorted, so why is it remainers feel like it's something that the UK should be paying for when a solution is just as beneficial to the EU as it is to us?
Because the EU is not responsible for this, and we know their position on EU membership, because we helped create it. The onus is on the UK to come up with a solution to the problem that Leave has created. So, here you go, it's your mess, what are you going to do about it?
We had a solution, a soft border - the EU rejected it - which is why we now need to negotiate, it's not just up to us to keep coming up with solutions - that's what negotiations are.
Free trade in exchange for the fact it is beneficial for both sides - or is free trade suddenly bad if it's not initiat3d by the EU?
As I said, We don't want the EU version of free movement, we just want to not have a hard border.
I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing. For example I can travel to Ukraine but I'm not allowed to take up employment and only stay for X days. Which pretty much fits your previous definition of soft border.
This means my passport is checked on entry. Doesn't matter if I fly to Kiev or drive from Poland. Is that soft enough?
The first part of this is what we offered, it was rejected.
As far as checking documents, You are right this happens at borders, we came up with a truly new and innovative solutions involving automated checks and Number Plate Recognicion technology.
New, innovative, a real chance to work with the unique situation of the Ireland/NI border, but rejected out of hand by the EU because they can't have it be seen that the UK can come up with solutions to leaving the EU so easy - afterall if we can do it so could everyone else.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/01 20:11:12
This is a very interesting statement, and one I'm sure many people across the EU would not agree with. Absolving the EU of all responsibility for this mess just further entrenches divisions, I think.
Personally, I'm actually saddened slightly that even after Brexit, the EU remains as intransigent as ever. I'm not even referring to their relations with the British, but their own internal politicking. Those sitting in Brussels still seem unwilling or unable to address the structural flaws within their system that helped to lead everyone to this point.
There was a period of about two months just after Brexit, when there were a lot of speeches made in the European Parliament, and by various functionaries to the effect of 'Something's gone wrong, and we need to figure out how to fix it'. It sounded really hopeful and positive, y'know? Made me hope that regardless of whatever potential mid to short term dog's dinner Brexit ended up as, something good might happen as a result. But as time has ticked on, the opposite has happened, if anything. The hatches have been well and truly battened down, the various crises (like the Italian immigrant situation) persist with no clear endgame, and everyone in Brussels seems to have forgotten what was said before. There was a small resurgence when Macron got elected of flag waving, but his internal support base has already dwindled, and his vision for Europe thus far seems to be "Same ol' same ol'".
I had a slight hope that Brexit would be the catalyst that would lead to things changing internally for the better in the EU's machinations, but it really seems to have come to nothing. It makes you wonder what actually has to happen to instigate a positive change. I hope for the people who live over there that something triggers it sooner or later, because there's a lot of discontent rumbling around finding outbursts in crass nationalism and xenophobia. I fear that if the EU continues to put its fingers in its ears, there'll be a Brexit repeat or worse in another country five years down the line.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/09/01 20:21:16
Making the point that nations should act in their own interests be the British, be they from the Republic, does not make one a warmonger.
Believing in the nation state does not make one a bigot or a racist. By that logic, there are billions of racists on Planet Earth, becuase we have over 150 sovereign nations in existence.
Should we tell the USA to tear up the declaration of independence or Greece to revert back to Sparta and Athens, or Germany to return to the days of the Hanseatic league? Of course not.
The issue is that the you are missing how such things link together. Violence does not instantly appear. It arises from a group of people expressing similar sentiments and deciding that the people on another side of a line should be 'removed' to ensure that the former gets what they want. It is the worst expression of peoples prejudices against a group simply because of a line.
Your expressions stated similar sentiments. "For me, and again, I stress I mean no disrespect to Ireland, but I'm not really that bothered about what happens to the Republic. They will have to stand on their own two feet like the rest of us." or "but I never forget that at the end of the day, they are foreigners...". You are judging a group of people by an arbitrary line on a map which has no meaning to who an individual is regardless of what side of a line they are on. You've specifically selected a group of people based on where they are and decided arbitrarily that they deserve less understanding or sympathy than those on your side of the line. Yet that line means nothing, all of us are here by fluke of chance combinations. Why should that make you think they are different and less worthy of consideration. You are valuing people simply on how in the relatively recent past someone scribbled on a map. The real danger is when lots of people start aggregating to this view because then that becomes ugly...There aren't billions of racists because the vast majority would happily have open borders everywhere; it is only the few that want to protect themselves from others becoming their equal, which in the end we all are.
Except it's the EU wanting a hard border, we offered a very reasonable solution without a hard border, and if the EU negotiated we'd probably have agreed to allow it to be open to anyone to visit, just not work or live - but they don't want that so instead claim we havn't come up with an option at all.
No we offered something that is against the founding principles of the EU and they won't accept that. It's a blunt way of the UK trying to divide the EU and they aren't having it. They will protect the equal rights for all it's citizens equally, anything that breaks that will not be accepted and is a waste of time. How likely do you think a deal with the US would be if we required the 3rd amendment to apply in Texas but not in Washington State?
I had a slight hope that Brexit would be the catalyst that would lead to things changing internally for the better in the EU's machinations, but it really seems to have come to nothing. It makes you wonder what actually has to happen to instigate a positive change. I hope for the people who live over there that something triggers it sooner or later, because there's a lot of discontent rumbling around finding outbursts in crass nationalism and xenophobia. I fear that if the EU continues to put its fingers in its ears, there'll be a Brexit repeat or worse in another country five years down the line.
I don't think you have to worry about this...they only need to watch the UK implode over the coming years to realise that going the same direction is not a good idea...
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/09/01 21:17:13
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
I don't think you have to worry about this...they only need to watch the UK implode over the coming years to realise that going the same direction is not a good idea...
I'll be frank, sometimes it feels you seem to almost be relishing the prospect. It may not be how you intend to come across, or even how you actually think on the matter, but it occasionally feels from the way you talk in this thread that you want the country to go completely down the pan in order to a) give what for to those with different political views to you (mainly nationalists), and b) make us rejoin the EU. I mean, countries have literally broken up in the past and not suffered the some of the sorts of ill economic devastation I've seen you predicting.
The most likely outcome is a minor recession for two or three years (which happens every ten-fifteen years anyway) whilst affairs rebalance, and then business as normal in the same way as Japan, India, etc. Some things will be lost, some things will be gained. And in fifteen years time, nobody will remember why it was such hot political issue.
If that is what happens, would you be happy with that?
I don't think you have to worry about this...they only need to watch the UK implode over the coming years to realise that going the same direction is not a good idea...
I'll be frank, sometimes it feels you seem to almost be relishing the prospect. It may not be how you intend to come across, or even how you actually think on the matter, but it occasionally feels from the way you talk in this thread that you want the country to go completely down the pan in order to a) give what for to those with different political views to you (mainly nationalists), and b) make us rejoin the EU. I mean, countries have literally broken up in the past and not suffered the some of the sorts of ill economic devastation I've seen you predicting.
I don't think I've ever said that. I think socially the UK is imploding. There is (in the majority) and older generation that pines for a UK with an empire and influence and a younger generation that is more accepting of that we now live in a global world and closing doors against increasingly globalised issues is not the way forward (however we are increasingly giving the outside world a negative impression of the UK to live and work in). I don't think that this will go away anytime soon and will see us see-sawing between two opposing views until the 50/60/70s generation die out in enough numbers. That in the end will leave the UK in worldwide weakened position globally as any thought of reliability disappears. I could point to the way our politics is becoming more divisive with a hard right (by current UK politics) party desperately clinging to power, whilst a hard left (by current UK standards) does exactly the same desperately trying to get power. Both sides removing any thought of debate in their own parties as much as possible.
Economically I think we will have a recession and then a slow slide in economic output given the current direction. The lack of stability in the UK will reduce investment and with an aging workforce, worse education system and being less attractive to migrants whilst we might have stagnant growth we'll steadily fall behind other nations until we become (although not weak) mediocre at best. The government will try and combat this by reducing social/environmental etc legislation reducing the rights of the people at large. This is all the while whilst we combat an increasingly resourced starved world that is warming considerably. In some ways I feel sorry for what is coming, especially for my niece and nephew who will be the ones that bear the brunt of this idiocy. The people at the top will be fine, it will be the populace at large that suffers.
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
The revolution is already under way. Government departments have been told that if they can find anything that merely requires secondary legislation — which either appears on the Commons Order Paper without debate, or goes to a small committee with a government majority of loyal MPs for the lightest possible scrutiny — then they should go ahead and do it. Secondary legislation is supposed to be for the details that MPs don’t need to spend hours debating in the chamber, like the location of a road or the precise rate at which a benefit is increased. But governments of all hues abuse the opportunity to avoid a row, and can sneak past big, controversial policies with minimal debate.
That's partly what differentiates acts of parliament to statutory instruments. The former have a significant and well-understood process to their passage. Multiple stages of debate and revision through both houses of parliament, combined with public awareness and usually involvement.
It's hardly a guarantee that all law will be exemplary, but this level of scrutiny certainly helps.
By contrast, a statutory instrument is, as parliament’s own website explains, "a form of legislation which allow[s] the provisions of an act of parliament to be subsequently brought into force or altered without parliament having to pass a new act". Primary legislation is intended to set out general principles, leaving it up to ministers and their civil servants to fill in the gaps.
Statutory instrument are categorised as either negative or affirmative instruments. In either case, they're published online and made available in the Commons library, but in the case of a negative instrument it becomes law unless it is rejected on a resolution of either House. Affirmative instruments require a positive vote in favour. In either case, no amendment is allowed: statutory instruments pass or fall as a whole.
Needless to say, they are very popular with our legislators. Throughout the entirety of the last Labour government, statutory instruments averaged a little under 1,900 per year, with the total count rarely topping 2,000.
Since 2010, they've been running at over 3,000 a year, with 2014 posting 3,423.
I work for a department that is currently trying to pass an SI and we have been told that the next available slot is in Summer 2019.
Da Boss wrote: I'm a passionate pro-European federalist precisely because I want to break down distinctions like that, so this all makes me sad and, yeah, angry.
Can you not see how that clashes with your previous comment:
Da Boss wrote: Well, I hope you can see equally why as a non-British person, I don't much care how you get treated in return.
You want us all to draw closer together, but you don't care how we get treated? That a fair old dichotomy.
I voted remain, and I still think brexit will feth us short and long term, but that dichotomy is exactly why a lot of people wanted out of the EU, the perception that the EU wanted us in, but not for our sake but theirs.
There's nothing clashing. Wanting a better integration and being happy about the UK being part of the EU is consistent if one is pro EU. Then being not enthusiastic when one member wants out of the club is also consistent, especially in a messy and confusing divorce. And if Leave people mention their "don't care what happens with the rest" mentality then why should pro EU people even care about the treatment of the post Leave UK? Do people with a pro EU stance need to have some sort of Stockholm syndrome for you to accept this as "consistent"? There's a different context and you can't just put two statements next to each other and complain about "dichotomy".
People want the UK in the EU to have a bigger community for all kinds of benefits but if the UK doesn't want to be part of this anymore then there's not much "drawing closer" that can happen (and forcing something would be creepy). The UK is one of the bigger members in the group and even has/had and slightly outsized influence on policies. How can you say "the perception that the EU wanted us in, but not for our sake but theirs". Maybe perception is the important word here but that's something the UK has to deal with. That perception itself also might be wrong.
I'm pro EU (feth it, I want a worldwide union) and think the whole referendum was an unorganised mess. Now the UK wants out (to a degree/percentage, not everyone, …) and that should be respected but don't expect a medal from the EU for that stunt.
Irish nationals will presumably need to prove their status in order to get this free movement? Does that count as free?
You're right of cause, I've never felt like a free man having to carry a passport when I go to a foreign country...
If you need a passport to cross the border, then you're still going to have to erect a physical barrier to stop people without one passing. You can't automate it using something like ANPR; how would you (a) identify if all of the passengers have free movement and (b) stop the cars with passengers that don't?
Even if you have an "Irish only" lane or queue at any borders, you'd still need a barrier to stop people abusing it.
However you regard it, that's still a border, and that's very much not wanted in Ireland, as well as a total pain in the rear for anyone who crosses the border on a regular basis.
Then you've got the fact that the border is about 300 miles long. Who's going to be responsible for policing the sections of border that don't have check-points on them?
The only way to not have a border is to genuinely leave it open and do all of the border checks when leaving Eire/NI, either on the EU side or the UK side, and cast a blind eye to anything that's made it across the soft/invisible border that shouldn't, since it'll never get any further.
This is a very interesting statement, and one I'm sure many people across the EU would not agree with. Absolving the EU of all responsibility for this mess just further entrenches divisions, I think...
At the end of the day, no one forced Cameron to call a referendum. Yes there is anti-EU feeling, and there are problems with the system but in some ways they are very distinct entities. The EU, like any man made beaurocracy, has flaws, and needs constant challenge and amendment, which does happen. However, as have seen, a lot of the anti-EU feeling has been down to things that were the responsibility of national Governments, but blamed on the EU.
This whole exercise has been a farce, with pundits now clinging to "sovreignty" as their justification now for putting the country through the grinder, when it was more likely just a chance to stick one in the eye of our own establishment.
It makes it more ludicrous when commentators like DINLT come one here and make grandiose claims about how this is a historic moment that the noble, right thinking people have reclaimed their heritage from the faceless beurocrats of Brussels, when frankly it's absolutely nothing like that at all.
What a fething pathetic joke.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
How about free movement on the Irish border but passport checks on further movement into the UK mainland? No one commutes across the Irish Sea on a daily basis so the numbers have to be lower.
Howard A Treesong wrote: How about free movement on the Irish border but passport checks on further movement into the UK mainland? No one commutes across the Irish Sea on a daily basis so the numbers have to be lower.
My understanding was that the idea has been robustly rejected by Unionists.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
