An Irish Sea border would be the end of the UK, an absolutely terrible idea.
The correct answer to all of this is for the UK to remain in the Customs Union and the Single Market with all that it entails. If we were to do this;
- the democratic mandate to leave the EU would be fulfilled - the good Friday agreement would not be jeapordised - the UK would not become fractured - our economy would be protected
Taking the CU & SM off the table before negotiations had even begun was probably the second stupidest thing May has done in this whole shambles (triggering article 50 before she had a clue what she was doing is probably number 1).
Whuch would mean staying under ECJ control and accepting freedom of movement. How many of the 17.4 million thought that woud be the result of leaving the EU do you think?
Given this was proposed multiple times by the official Leave campaigns and all prominent Brexiters then those in the 17.4million either agreed or they weren't paying attention.
That we would keep freedom of movement? Really?
Well stopping freedom of movement seems to have been a definite motivation for those voting brexit. So you have a land border 310 miles long. There are 200 road border crossings, and many other crossing points too. What are the exact practical steps planned by those who voted brexit to control the freedom of movement along that 310 mile border with 200 road crossings, and many other lesser crossing points? How will it work and how much will it cost to prevent freedom of movement of people?
As we have discussed before. Stopping freedom of movement is a legal decision, enforcing it is a policing action. If people vreak the law by coming here illegally and working they risk capture and deportation.
So we literally aren't going to control our borders, we'll just arrest and deport people if they violate them? I wonder how many of the 17.4M voted for that nonsense?
An Irish Sea border would be the end of the UK, an absolutely terrible idea.
The correct answer to all of this is for the UK to remain in the Customs Union and the Single Market with all that it entails. If we were to do this;
- the democratic mandate to leave the EU would be fulfilled - the good Friday agreement would not be jeapordised - the UK would not become fractured - our economy would be protected
Taking the CU & SM off the table before negotiations had even begun was probably the second stupidest thing May has done in this whole shambles (triggering article 50 before she had a clue what she was doing is probably number 1).
Whuch would mean staying under ECJ control and accepting freedom of movement. How many of the 17.4 million thought that woud be the result of leaving the EU do you think?
In a poll last April approximately 63% of those who voted leave in the referendum believed in leaving everything. If that was accurate then it would mean that some 11 million leave voters thought that leave meant leaving the single market and the jurisdiction of the ECJ as well as the Customs Union. This option was not on the ballot paper but that's not the issue.
We should expect that pattern to develop this year as the core issues are exposed during these negotiations. However I can't find a more recent poll which shares the underlying data and shows Customs Union vs referendum vote. There are several polls mapping views on the Customs Union and Single Market against party preference and the recent Labour move is supported by the vast majority of the membership.
On your last point, that is because the Labour membership is now overwhelmingly middle class and southern and always was Remain.
Try this link on party membership views of Brexit - Labour has 50% of its membership in the Midlands and the North and 5% in Scotland. So 45% in London and the South East.
The average age is 53 and 1/3 of the members are also in a trade union. Labour, Lib Dems and the SNP all share similar views on Brexit. And the members views are not markedly different to the voters.
You've not addressed the main point but no matter - we will see how this develops over the next six months.
An Irish Sea border would be the end of the UK, an absolutely terrible idea.
The correct answer to all of this is for the UK to remain in the Customs Union and the Single Market with all that it entails. If we were to do this;
- the democratic mandate to leave the EU would be fulfilled - the good Friday agreement would not be jeapordised - the UK would not become fractured - our economy would be protected
Taking the CU & SM off the table before negotiations had even begun was probably the second stupidest thing May has done in this whole shambles (triggering article 50 before she had a clue what she was doing is probably number 1).
Whuch would mean staying under ECJ control and accepting freedom of movement. How many of the 17.4 million thought that woud be the result of leaving the EU do you think?
Given this was proposed multiple times by the official Leave campaigns and all prominent Brexiters then those in the 17.4million either agreed or they weren't paying attention.
That we would keep freedom of movement? Really?
Well stopping freedom of movement seems to have been a definite motivation for those voting brexit. So you have a land border 310 miles long. There are 200 road border crossings, and many other crossing points too. What are the exact practical steps planned by those who voted brexit to control the freedom of movement along that 310 mile border with 200 road crossings, and many other lesser crossing points? How will it work and how much will it cost to prevent freedom of movement of people?
As we have discussed before. Stopping freedom of movement is a legal decision, enforcing it is a policing action. If people vreak the law by coming here illegally and working they risk capture and deportation.
An Irish Sea border would be the end of the UK, an absolutely terrible idea.
The correct answer to all of this is for the UK to remain in the Customs Union and the Single Market with all that it entails. If we were to do this;
- the democratic mandate to leave the EU would be fulfilled - the good Friday agreement would not be jeapordised - the UK would not become fractured - our economy would be protected
Taking the CU & SM off the table before negotiations had even begun was probably the second stupidest thing May has done in this whole shambles (triggering article 50 before she had a clue what she was doing is probably number 1).
Whuch would mean staying under ECJ control and accepting freedom of movement. How many of the 17.4 million thought that woud be the result of leaving the EU do you think?
Given this was proposed multiple times by the official Leave campaigns and all prominent Brexiters then those in the 17.4million either agreed or they weren't paying attention.
That we would keep freedom of movement? Really?
Well stopping freedom of movement seems to have been a definite motivation for those voting brexit. So you have a land border 310 miles long. There are 200 road border crossings, and many other crossing points too. What are the exact practical steps planned by those who voted brexit to control the freedom of movement along that 310 mile border with 200 road crossings, and many other lesser crossing points? How will it work and how much will it cost to prevent freedom of movement of people?
As we have discussed before. Stopping freedom of movement is a legal decision, enforcing it is a policing action. If people vreak the law by coming here illegally and working they risk capture and deportation.
Stopping freedom of movement is a Brexit decision. How much extra will you spend on police action, and what advice will you give thé police regarding the special circumstances, wha tchecks will be made on people crossing
An Irish Sea border would be the end of the UK, an absolutely terrible idea.
The correct answer to all of this is for the UK to remain in the Customs Union and the Single Market with all that it entails. If we were to do this;
- the democratic mandate to leave the EU would be fulfilled - the good Friday agreement would not be jeapordised - the UK would not become fractured - our economy would be protected
Taking the CU & SM off the table before negotiations had even begun was probably the second stupidest thing May has done in this whole shambles (triggering article 50 before she had a clue what she was doing is probably number 1).
Whuch would mean staying under ECJ control and accepting freedom of movement. How many of the 17.4 million thought that woud be the result of leaving the EU do you think?
Given this was proposed multiple times by the official Leave campaigns and all prominent Brexiters then those in the 17.4million either agreed or they weren't paying attention.
That we would keep freedom of movement? Really?
Well stopping freedom of movement seems to have been a definite motivation for those voting brexit. So you have a land border 310 miles long. There are 200 road border crossings, and many other crossing points too. What are the exact practical steps planned by those who voted brexit to control the freedom of movement along that 310 mile border with 200 road crossings, and many other lesser crossing points? How will it work and how much will it cost to prevent freedom of movement of people?
As we have discussed before. Stopping freedom of movement is a legal decision, enforcing it is a policing action. If people vreak the law by coming here illegally and working they risk capture and deportation.
It is a brexit decision, leading to special policing arrangements. In the absence of detail from you I can tell you the the costs of policing the border will be 200 million per year at least, probably five time that regarding your suggestions. And given the geography it won't work.
An Irish Sea border would be the end of the UK, an absolutely terrible idea.
The correct answer to all of this is for the UK to remain in the Customs Union and the Single Market with all that it entails. If we were to do this;
- the democratic mandate to leave the EU would be fulfilled - the good Friday agreement would not be jeapordised - the UK would not become fractured - our economy would be protected
Taking the CU & SM off the table before negotiations had even begun was probably the second stupidest thing May has done in this whole shambles (triggering article 50 before she had a clue what she was doing is probably number 1).
Whuch would mean staying under ECJ control and accepting freedom of movement. How many of the 17.4 million thought that woud be the result of leaving the EU do you think?
Given this was proposed multiple times by the official Leave campaigns and all prominent Brexiters then those in the 17.4million either agreed or they weren't paying attention.
That we would keep freedom of movement? Really?
Well stopping freedom of movement seems to have been a definite motivation for those voting brexit. So you have a land border 310 miles long. There are 200 road border crossings, and many other crossing points too. What are the exact practical steps planned by those who voted brexit to control the freedom of movement along that 310 mile border with 200 road crossings, and many other lesser crossing points? How will it work and how much will it cost to prevent freedom of movement of people?
As we have discussed before. Stopping freedom of movement is a legal decision, enforcing it is a policing action. If people vreak the law by coming here illegally and working they risk capture and deportation.
So we literally aren't going to control our borders, we'll just arrest and deport people if they violate them? I wonder how many of the 17.4M voted for that nonsense?
I'm probably getting this wrong again but are you saying @Southbank that we don't have a border per se but rely on picking illegal immigrants up once they enter the UK? How does that work in practise? Will we need further legislation to introduce the compulsary carrying of ID cards and evidence of legal status?
An Irish Sea border would be the end of the UK, an absolutely terrible idea.
The correct answer to all of this is for the UK to remain in the Customs Union and the Single Market with all that it entails. If we were to do this;
- the democratic mandate to leave the EU would be fulfilled - the good Friday agreement would not be jeapordised - the UK would not become fractured - our economy would be protected
Taking the CU & SM off the table before negotiations had even begun was probably the second stupidest thing May has done in this whole shambles (triggering article 50 before she had a clue what she was doing is probably number 1).
Whuch would mean staying under ECJ control and accepting freedom of movement. How many of the 17.4 million thought that woud be the result of leaving the EU do you think?
Given this was proposed multiple times by the official Leave campaigns and all prominent Brexiters then those in the 17.4million either agreed or they weren't paying attention.
That we would keep freedom of movement? Really?
Well stopping freedom of movement seems to have been a definite motivation for those voting brexit. So you have a land border 310 miles long. There are 200 road border crossings, and many other crossing points too. What are the exact practical steps planned by those who voted brexit to control the freedom of movement along that 310 mile border with 200 road crossings, and many other lesser crossing points? How will it work and how much will it cost to prevent freedom of movement of people?
As we have discussed before. Stopping freedom of movement is a legal decision, enforcing it is a policing action. If people vreak the law by coming here illegally and working they risk capture and deportation.
So we literally aren't going to control our borders, we'll just arrest and deport people if they violate them? I wonder how many of the 17.4M voted for that nonsense?
I'm probably getting this wrong again but are you saying @Southbank that we don't have a border per se but rely on picking illegal immigrants up once they enter the UK? How does that work in practise? Will we need further legislation to introduce the compulsary carrying of ID cards and evidence of legal status?
An Irish Sea border would be the end of the UK, an absolutely terrible idea.
The correct answer to all of this is for the UK to remain in the Customs Union and the Single Market with all that it entails. If we were to do this;
- the democratic mandate to leave the EU would be fulfilled - the good Friday agreement would not be jeapordised - the UK would not become fractured - our economy would be protected
Taking the CU & SM off the table before negotiations had even begun was probably the second stupidest thing May has done in this whole shambles (triggering article 50 before she had a clue what she was doing is probably number 1).
Whuch would mean staying under ECJ control and accepting freedom of movement. How many of the 17.4 million thought that woud be the result of leaving the EU do you think?
Given this was proposed multiple times by the official Leave campaigns and all prominent Brexiters then those in the 17.4million either agreed or they weren't paying attention.
That we would keep freedom of movement? Really?
Well stopping freedom of movement seems to have been a definite motivation for those voting brexit. So you have a land border 310 miles long. There are 200 road border crossings, and many other crossing points too. What are the exact practical steps planned by those who voted brexit to control the freedom of movement along that 310 mile border with 200 road crossings, and many other lesser crossing points? How will it work and how much will it cost to prevent freedom of movement of people?
As we have discussed before. Stopping freedom of movement is a legal decision, enforcing it is a policing action. If people vreak the law by coming here illegally and working they risk capture and deportation.
So we literally aren't going to control our borders, we'll just arrest and deport people if they violate them? I wonder how many of the 17.4M voted for that nonsense?
I'm probably getting this wrong again but are you saying @Southbank that we don't have a border per se but rely on picking illegal immigrants up once they enter the UK? How does that work in practise? Will we need further legislation to introduce the compulsary carrying of ID cards and evidence of legal status?
It will work as it works now. If people come here on holiday and stay to work they are breaking the law. The Common Travel Area cooperation between the Irish and British should continue, therefore minimising non EU illegal immigration. I cannot see many French bankers sneaking in to work illegally. There will also be opportunity for people both from the EU and outside it to come and work here legally to fill jobs we cannot internally.
An Irish Sea border would be the end of the UK, an absolutely terrible idea.
The correct answer to all of this is for the UK to remain in the Customs Union and the Single Market with all that it entails. If we were to do this;
- the democratic mandate to leave the EU would be fulfilled - the good Friday agreement would not be jeapordised - the UK would not become fractured - our economy would be protected
Taking the CU & SM off the table before negotiations had even begun was probably the second stupidest thing May has done in this whole shambles (triggering article 50 before she had a clue what she was doing is probably number 1).
Whuch would mean staying under ECJ control and accepting freedom of movement. How many of the 17.4 million thought that woud be the result of leaving the EU do you think?
Given this was proposed multiple times by the official Leave campaigns and all prominent Brexiters then those in the 17.4million either agreed or they weren't paying attention.
That we would keep freedom of movement? Really?
Well stopping freedom of movement seems to have been a definite motivation for those voting brexit. So you have a land border 310 miles long. There are 200 road border crossings, and many other crossing points too. What are the exact practical steps planned by those who voted brexit to control the freedom of movement along that 310 mile border with 200 road crossings, and many other lesser crossing points? How will it work and how much will it cost to prevent freedom of movement of people?
As we have discussed before. Stopping freedom of movement is a legal decision, enforcing it is a policing action. If people vreak the law by coming here illegally and working they risk capture and deportation.
So we literally aren't going to control our borders, we'll just arrest and deport people if they violate them? I wonder how many of the 17.4M voted for that nonsense?
I'm probably getting this wrong again but are you saying @Southbank that we don't have a border per se but rely on picking illegal immigrants up once they enter the UK? How does that work in practise? Will we need further legislation to introduce the compulsary carrying of ID cards and evidence of legal status?
It will work as it works now. If people come here on holiday and stay to work they are breaking the law. The Common Travel Area cooperation between the Irish and British should continue, therefore minimising non EU illegal immigration. I cannot see many French bankers sneaking in to work illegally. There will also be opportunity for people both from the EU and outside it to come and work here legally to fill jobs we cannot internally.
If it works as it works now in what way does brexit deal with freedom of movement? What is the difference?
Still...no deal's better than a bad deal and all that.
Just a day after Travis Perkins reported Brexit as a cause of their profits drop. Jeez this magical Brexit wonderland had better be bloody good to make up for the economic problems it's causing.
'Wait and see' they say, 'we can't predict the future, but there might be some benefits'. Absolute madness.
Reply to Seth I agree with almost everything you say here. I heard Blair on the radio this morning saying that he is going to ask the EU to change its immigration policies to allow the UK to stay in.
Whether he is sincere or not, he also does not seem to understand that the EU is a political as well as an economic project. Its end goal is a federal Europe, however long and tortuous that journey may be. It will not change its direction to suit the requirements of any one of its members, except the most important one-Germany.
As long as Germany is on board with the project the 4 freedoms will be inviolable and countries that want to be part of it have to accept that. The 'negotiations' are delusional, demoralising and potentially dangerous, as we can see with the EU's plan to annex Northern Ireland if they cannot get their way.
Again you seem to promote the idea that "The EU" is controlled by supra-national little green men. Of course it is a political project. Politics changes direction. Even if it were true that Germany dictates the entire direction of the EU (and Macron might have something to say about that, not to mention the mad Poles), you yourself were wanting to cite the changing political landscape in Germany in your post yesterday. Blair was quite rightly saying that there is a changing attitude to immigration across Europe - including in Germany; you cited the relative strength of the AfD yourself. I don't like Blair because of the values that emerged from him over the years but as a global politician there remain few more competent and I would not be at all surprised if he gets a ready audience for his proposal.
If you would like a bet on the EU abandoning the free movement of people in the next 5 years I would be willing to take it. It would be a win win for me as I want it abandoned.
I think there could be some new restrictions. I would not mind a bet with that, but it might be tricky to agree what constitutes a change big enough to satisfy you ( and that is not a dig). Blair was saying this morning that various EU countries implemented restrictions that the U.K. for whatever reason chose not to copy. Many times I've mentioned the Polish restrictions on benefits for new arrivals. Lets think about the terms of the bet. And hope we are both around for when you cough up :-)
Reply to Seth I agree with almost everything you say here. I heard Blair on the radio this morning saying that he is going to ask the EU to change its immigration policies to allow the UK to stay in.
Whether he is sincere or not, he also does not seem to understand that the EU is a political as well as an economic project. Its end goal is a federal Europe, however long and tortuous that journey may be. It will not change its direction to suit the requirements of any one of its members, except the most important one-Germany.
As long as Germany is on board with the project the 4 freedoms will be inviolable and countries that want to be part of it have to accept that. The 'negotiations' are delusional, demoralising and potentially dangerous, as we can see with the EU's plan to annex Northern Ireland if they cannot get their way.
Again you seem to promote the idea that "The EU" is controlled by supra-national little green men. Of course it is a political project. Politics changes direction. Even if it were true that Germany dictates the entire direction of the EU (and Macron might have something to say about that, not to mention the mad Poles), you yourself were wanting to cite the changing political landscape in Germany in your post yesterday. Blair was quite rightly saying that there is a changing attitude to immigration across Europe - including in Germany; you cited the relative strength of the AfD yourself. I don't like Blair because of the values that emerged from him over the years but as a global politician there remain few more competent and I would not be at all surprised if he gets a ready audience for his proposal.
If you would like a bet on the EU abandoning the free movement of people in the next 5 years I would be willing to take it. It would be a win win for me as I want it abandoned.
I think there could be some new restrictions. I would not mind a bet with that, but it might be tricky to agree what constitutes a change big enough to satisfy you ( and that is not a dig). Blair was saying this morning that various EU countries implemented restrictions that the U.K. for whatever reason chose not to copy. Many times I've mentioned the Polish restrictions on benefits for new arrivals. Lets think about the terms of the bet. And hope we are both around for when you cough up :-)
Blair is talking bollox. He never said anything like that when he was in power he is a total cnut. I would rather believe what Roland says than him
An Irish Sea border would be the end of the UK, an absolutely terrible idea.
The correct answer to all of this is for the UK to remain in the Customs Union and the Single Market with all that it entails. If we were to do this;
- the democratic mandate to leave the EU would be fulfilled - the good Friday agreement would not be jeapordised - the UK would not become fractured - our economy would be protected
Taking the CU & SM off the table before negotiations had even begun was probably the second stupidest thing May has done in this whole shambles (triggering article 50 before she had a clue what she was doing is probably number 1).
Whuch would mean staying under ECJ control and accepting freedom of movement. How many of the 17.4 million thought that woud be the result of leaving the EU do you think?
Given this was proposed multiple times by the official Leave campaigns and all prominent Brexiters then those in the 17.4million either agreed or they weren't paying attention.
That we would keep freedom of movement? Really?
Well stopping freedom of movement seems to have been a definite motivation for those voting brexit. So you have a land border 310 miles long. There are 200 road border crossings, and many other crossing points too. What are the exact practical steps planned by those who voted brexit to control the freedom of movement along that 310 mile border with 200 road crossings, and many other lesser crossing points? How will it work and how much will it cost to prevent freedom of movement of people?
As we have discussed before. Stopping freedom of movement is a legal decision, enforcing it is a policing action. If people vreak the law by coming here illegally and working they risk capture and deportation.
So we literally aren't going to control our borders, we'll just arrest and deport people if they violate them? I wonder how many of the 17.4M voted for that nonsense?
I'm probably getting this wrong again but are you saying @Southbank that we don't have a border per se but rely on picking illegal immigrants up once they enter the UK? How does that work in practise? Will we need further legislation to introduce the compulsary carrying of ID cards and evidence of legal status?
It will work as it works now. If people come here on holiday and stay to work they are breaking the law. The Common Travel Area cooperation between the Irish and British should continue, therefore minimising non EU illegal immigration. I cannot see many French bankers sneaking in to work illegally. There will also be opportunity for people both from the EU and outside it to come and work here legally to fill jobs we cannot internally.
If it works as it works now in what way does brexit deal with freedom of movement? What is the difference?
Because currently EU citizens can come here and work by right. That would change.
Still...no deal's better than a bad deal and all that.
Just a day after Travis Perkins reported Brexit as a cause of their profits drop. Jeez this magical Brexit wonderland had better be bloody good to make up for the economic problems it's causing.
'Wait and see' they say, 'we can't predict the future, but there might be some benefits'. Absolute madness.
Still...no deal's better than a bad deal and all that.
Just a day after Travis Perkins reported Brexit as a cause of their profits drop. Jeez this magical Brexit wonderland had better be bloody good to make up for the economic problems it's causing.
'Wait and see' they say, 'we can't predict the future, but there might be some benefits'. Absolute madness.
Every crap boss is blaming Brexit just now.
Every bad company will do the same... Good time to bury bad news... Ie make redundancies and blame brexit.
Reply to Seth I agree with almost everything you say here. I heard Blair on the radio this morning saying that he is going to ask the EU to change its immigration policies to allow the UK to stay in.
Whether he is sincere or not, he also does not seem to understand that the EU is a political as well as an economic project. Its end goal is a federal Europe, however long and tortuous that journey may be. It will not change its direction to suit the requirements of any one of its members, except the most important one-Germany.
As long as Germany is on board with the project the 4 freedoms will be inviolable and countries that want to be part of it have to accept that. The 'negotiations' are delusional, demoralising and potentially dangerous, as we can see with the EU's plan to annex Northern Ireland if they cannot get their way.
Again you seem to promote the idea that "The EU" is controlled by supra-national little green men. Of course it is a political project. Politics changes direction. Even if it were true that Germany dictates the entire direction of the EU (and Macron might have something to say about that, not to mention the mad Poles), you yourself were wanting to cite the changing political landscape in Germany in your post yesterday. Blair was quite rightly saying that there is a changing attitude to immigration across Europe - including in Germany; you cited the relative strength of the AfD yourself. I don't like Blair because of the values that emerged from him over the years but as a global politician there remain few more competent and I would not be at all surprised if he gets a ready audience for his proposal.
If you would like a bet on the EU abandoning the free movement of people in the next 5 years I would be willing to take it. It would be a win win for me as I want it abandoned.
I think there could be some new restrictions. I would not mind a bet with that, but it might be tricky to agree what constitutes a change big enough to satisfy you ( and that is not a dig). Blair was saying this morning that various EU countries implemented restrictions that the U.K. for whatever reason chose not to copy. Many times I've mentioned the Polish restrictions on benefits for new arrivals. Lets think about the terms of the bet. And hope we are both around for when you cough up :-)
Well my definition would be that each country could determine who and how many people it would allow to come and work. So I guess that might be a bit much for you. Obviously if the EU collapses in the next 5 years that would not count :-)
Still...no deal's better than a bad deal and all that.
Just a day after Travis Perkins reported Brexit as a cause of their profits drop. Jeez this magical Brexit wonderland had better be bloody good to make up for the economic problems it's causing.
'Wait and see' they say, 'we can't predict the future, but there might be some benefits'. Absolute madness.
Every crap boss is blaming Brexit just now.
At least toys r us and maplins haven't gone down that road.... Yet
Still...no deal's better than a bad deal and all that.
Just a day after Travis Perkins reported Brexit as a cause of their profits drop. Jeez this magical Brexit wonderland had better be bloody good to make up for the economic problems it's causing.
'Wait and see' they say, 'we can't predict the future, but there might be some benefits'. Absolute madness.
Still...no deal's better than a bad deal and all that.
Just a day after Travis Perkins reported Brexit as a cause of their profits drop. Jeez this magical Brexit wonderland had better be bloody good to make up for the economic problems it's causing.
'Wait and see' they say, 'we can't predict the future, but there might be some benefits'. Absolute madness.
Every crap boss is blaming Brexit just now.
Every bad company will do the same... Good time to bury bad news... Ie make redundancies and blame brexit.
Still...no deal's better than a bad deal and all that.
Just a day after Travis Perkins reported Brexit as a cause of their profits drop. Jeez this magical Brexit wonderland had better be bloody good to make up for the economic problems it's causing.
'Wait and see' they say, 'we can't predict the future, but there might be some benefits'. Absolute madness.
Every crap boss is blaming Brexit just now.
Every bad company will do the same... Good time to bury bad news... Ie make redundancies and blame brexit.
Financial analysts everywhere agree that Brexit is bad for British business - nothing to do with being a bad boss.
Personally I'd tend to agree with those who actually know what they're talking about as opposed to a couple of people online who have no idea what they're talking and are so desperate to trick themselves into thinking Brexit can ever be a success that they have blinded themselves to facts and logic and can only repeat the same lies over and over again.
An Irish Sea border would be the end of the UK, an absolutely terrible idea.
The correct answer to all of this is for the UK to remain in the Customs Union and the Single Market with all that it entails. If we were to do this;
- the democratic mandate to leave the EU would be fulfilled - the good Friday agreement would not be jeapordised - the UK would not become fractured - our economy would be protected
Taking the CU & SM off the table before negotiations had even begun was probably the second stupidest thing May has done in this whole shambles (triggering article 50 before she had a clue what she was doing is probably number 1).
Whuch would mean staying under ECJ control and accepting freedom of movement. How many of the 17.4 million thought that woud be the result of leaving the EU do you think?
Given this was proposed multiple times by the official Leave campaigns and all prominent Brexiters then those in the 17.4million either agreed or they weren't paying attention.
That we would keep freedom of movement? Really?
Well stopping freedom of movement seems to have been a definite motivation for those voting brexit. So you have a land border 310 miles long. There are 200 road border crossings, and many other crossing points too. What are the exact practical steps planned by those who voted brexit to control the freedom of movement along that 310 mile border with 200 road crossings, and many other lesser crossing points? How will it work and how much will it cost to prevent freedom of movement of people?
As we have discussed before. Stopping freedom of movement is a legal decision, enforcing it is a policing action. If people vreak the law by coming here illegally and working they risk capture and deportation.
So we literally aren't going to control our borders, we'll just arrest and deport people if they violate them? I wonder how many of the 17.4M voted for that nonsense?
I'm probably getting this wrong again but are you saying @Southbank that we don't have a border per se but rely on picking illegal immigrants up once they enter the UK? How does that work in practise? Will we need further legislation to introduce the compulsary carrying of ID cards and evidence of legal status?
It will work as it works now. If people come here on holiday and stay to work they are breaking the law. The Common Travel Area cooperation between the Irish and British should continue, therefore minimising non EU illegal immigration. I cannot see many French bankers sneaking in to work illegally. There will also be opportunity for people both from the EU and outside it to come and work here legally to fill jobs we cannot internally.
If it works as it works now in what way does brexit deal with freedom of movement? What is the difference?
Because currently EU citizens can come here and work by right. That would change.
OK. And the way it will be monitored is by an increase in internal checks? Swoops and spot checks and the like? If that is the method then there is no need for people movement border checks at Dover or Heathrow or any other place of entry is there? Each individual carries an invisible border around them as it were, and it is down to the authorities to check each individual out at random places throughout the country?
My problem is that I don't like the EU of today and have always been a bit suspicious of it, so being a remainer for me is based around the clear evidence that leaving it is detrimental to this country's prosperity. I am pro European but am suspicious of the direction the EU has taken. Now whether I am right or wrong, I have a natural position that the evidence of experts has convinced me to sacrifice. Also from the simple logic, which backs the experts up, that losing tariff free trade with your biggest trading partner is not a sensible thing to do. I believe people have a position then look for evidence to back that position - we all do it. Well I had a natural position and evidence countered that position. I think the policy of Austerity which has been a cornerstone of the EUs policy is terrible. I think the best way to make the EU work better for us is to kick Germany out of it -and I have nothing against the German people - they just don't get that if everybody was like them, they would be poorer- but even with its flaws it is better to be in it than out of it. It would be better if it was different but it isn't and it is there and it is very powerful -more powerful than we are.
Now the give away line of the Brexit campaign for me was that we shouldn't listen to the experts. Also when the economic arguments were being lost, the decision to take the campaign down the xenophobic route. A trick of the right through history. It is easy and understandable to have a justified mistrust of the EU and a desire for self government, but then listen to economic arguments that feed into that rather than from sane economists. It is a bit like climate change. If you don't believe in global warming, you are a foo,l but you can find enough crackpots to back you up - probably to meet their own agendas of self interest. But you should always listen to the experts, not the people who paint the eutopian picture of all these countries desperate to give us fantastic trade deals.
I must admit, I quite like the idea of leaving on one level, but having a Norway like arrangement would be essential. I think we can make that work - there would be a collective sigh of relief from business which would have a decent chance to bring confidence to and rejuvinate our economy and we can carry on getting on with business without the massive risks Brexit will bring. Then we have to see how the EU develops - factors that caused disaffection are not only in Britain. The EU could move to the trade partnership it always should have been. Leaving and just doing reasonably well may help us get the EU that most people want. But leaving it -as part of a hard Brexit - well that is plain stupid. As a trading nation, it is too big and too important a market, and nothing is stopping us trading with the US and China now. Why do we think we will get a better trade deal with these countries with less to offer in terms of the size of our market?
We have been in the EU long enough and playing the long game is sensible - what is 5 years, 10 years or 20 years in all of this? Brexiters don't want to play the long game as they fear the outcome being overturned - Its as simple as that. There is no sensible reason for rushing this through and for the same reason a transition period of 6 to 10 years is very sensible too. We can react to the changes in the world and in Europe and position ourselves strategically rather than make the rash action that people like Gove, Johnson, Rees-Mogg, IBS (sorry IDS) and Liam Fox want. Me listing those politicians should tell you that these are not the sort of people we should want leading us on something so important!
Comments
The average age is 53 and 1/3 of the members are also in a trade union. Labour, Lib Dems and the SNP all share similar views on Brexit. And the members views are not markedly different to the voters.
You've not addressed the main point but no matter - we will see how this develops over the next six months.
Me..... Jack Nicholson as the joker.
'Wait and see' they say, 'we can't predict the future, but there might be some benefits'. Absolute madness.
He never said anything like that when he was in power he is a total cnut.
I would rather believe what Roland says than him
Obviously if the EU collapses in the next 5 years that would not count :-)
Personally I'd tend to agree with those who actually know what they're talking about as opposed to a couple of people online who have no idea what they're talking and are so desperate to trick themselves into thinking Brexit can ever be a success that they have blinded themselves to facts and logic and can only repeat the same lies over and over again.
And the way it will be monitored is by an increase in internal checks?
Swoops and spot checks and the like?
If that is the method then there is no need for people movement border checks at Dover or Heathrow or any other place of entry is there?
Each individual carries an invisible border around them as it were, and it is down to the authorities to check each individual out at random places throughout the country?
Now the give away line of the Brexit campaign for me was that we shouldn't listen to the experts. Also when the economic arguments were being lost, the decision to take the campaign down the xenophobic route. A trick of the right through history. It is easy and understandable to have a justified mistrust of the EU and a desire for self government, but then listen to economic arguments that feed into that rather than from sane economists. It is a bit like climate change. If you don't believe in global warming, you are a foo,l but you can find enough crackpots to back you up - probably to meet their own agendas of self interest. But you should always listen to the experts, not the people who paint the eutopian picture of all these countries desperate to give us fantastic trade deals.
I must admit, I quite like the idea of leaving on one level, but having a Norway like arrangement would be essential. I think we can make that work - there would be a collective sigh of relief from business which would have a decent chance to bring confidence to and rejuvinate our economy and we can carry on getting on with business without the massive risks Brexit will bring. Then we have to see how the EU develops - factors that caused disaffection are not only in Britain. The EU could move to the trade partnership it always should have been. Leaving and just doing reasonably well may help us get the EU that most people want. But leaving it -as part of a hard Brexit - well that is plain stupid. As a trading nation, it is too big and too important a market, and nothing is stopping us trading with the US and China now. Why do we think we will get a better trade deal with these countries with less to offer in terms of the size of our market?
We have been in the EU long enough and playing the long game is sensible - what is 5 years, 10 years or 20 years in all of this? Brexiters don't want to play the long game as they fear the outcome being overturned - Its as simple as that. There is no sensible reason for rushing this through and for the same reason a transition period of 6 to 10 years is very sensible too. We can react to the changes in the world and in Europe and position ourselves strategically rather than make the rash action that people like Gove, Johnson, Rees-Mogg, IBS (sorry IDS) and Liam Fox want. Me listing those politicians should tell you that these are not the sort of people we should want leading us on something so important!