Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?
Sign in to follow this  
HighPressure

UK & EU Economies post Brexit

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, coldcomfort said:

What is wrong exactly with moving the UK border back to Kent?

Let's play devils advocate and say the border is now in Kent and French authorities are no longer checking vehicles at Calais. 

Dover then becomes the first point of contact with illegal immigrants. 

How do you propose to deal with them? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, coldcomfort said:

Explain your fears then?

The French will not be processing at least 7 to 8,000 plus applicants for travel to the UK, they will be looking at ways they can be dumping them over this side of the channel - they will see it as our problem not theirs and will only be too pleased to be shut of them - once here if our border police act as they are currently performing they will not contain them, they may briefly take details then tell them to report at a specific time and place only to find that they have all disappeared into the undergrowth.

Any thoughts about moving them back over the other side can be disregarded - that won't happen - the disruption to normal cross channel traffic will be far too great.

And you cannot imagine that all this could be done without any political eruptions either.

Edited by mike Meehan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, the folks who whine the quickest and loudest about the perceived 'agendas' of those with whom they happen to disagree are invariably more guilty than those they seek to besmirch...There's more than a smidgen truth in the saying, 'The lady/man doth protest too much'??:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

IMO, the folks who whine the quickest and loudest about the perceived 'agendas' of those with whom they happen to disagree are invariably more guilty than those they seek to besmirch...There's more than a smidgen truth in the saying, 'The lady/man doth protest too much'??:D

That has certainly been my experience in dealing with a fair number of 'mecreants' in my time - they usually kept jumping up and down shouting, 'I know my rights' I felt obliged to tell them at times that they may well know their rights but they knew bugger all about their responsibilities.

It is well known in the criminal fraternity that attack is the best form of defence - that's why you often get fanciful allegations made against the conduct of police officers - I once hit the headlines of a local newspaper, 'Detective vindicated by a jury's verdict' :shok:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, coldcomfort said:

What is wrong exactly with moving the UK border back to Kent?

Nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that the Leave campaign played a lot on democracy then they can't start moaning because Remainers are going to hold the government to account and put pressure on them to find a deal that takes account of the closeness of the vote.

Just because Leave won doesn't mean that the debate should be shut down and the Brexit team should be given free licence to do whatever they like. 

Theresa May should not just trigger article 50 when she feels like it, given the big issue of sovereignty then parliament should scrutinize what the UKs list of requirements will be and then give the go ahead to trigger the article .

Politically why would the Tories not want to have some cover and be able to say to voters that parliament is acting on a united front . Given that parliament voted to authorize the referendum then they should be the ones to give the green light to act on that.

Listening to some of the anti EU Tory backbenchers they're acting as if the electorate voted overwhelmingly to leave which wasn't the case.

There are many areas where voters want to know the UK position, workers rights, environmental protection etc. Before any EU negotiations people need to feel satisfied that the Brexit team are doing what's best for the country as a whole and not just what's good for a rabid bunch of backbenchers who seem to want some hard Brexit and don't care about any fall out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May can't just trigger article 50 just like that whatever you remainers believe. Been explained plenty of times as to why it cannot just simply flick the switch and out we go. 

It sees that remainers want everything rushed so they can then say told you so if it goes wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mike Meehan said:

The French will not be processing at least 7 to 8,000 plus applicants for travel to the UK, they will be looking at ways they can be dumping them over this side of the channel - they will see it as our problem not theirs and will only be too pleased to be shut of them - once here if our border police act as they are currently performing they will not contain them, they may briefly take details then tell them to report at a specific time and place only to find that they have all disappeared into the undergrowth.

Any thoughts about moving them back over the other side can be disregarded - that won't happen - the disruption to normal cross channel traffic will be far too great.

And you cannot imagine that all this could be done without any political eruptions either.

And how are they going to do that...all you are doing is scaremongering yet again. Countries cannot just go dumping people on other countries, it just does not happen in the real world. Without passports those in the Jungle will not be allowed to travel legally to UK, even if they have sought asylum and been successful. As for the vast majority who simply refuse to even do that, well they've go no chance.  As for the illegals... well the numbers in which they are currently coming is so high any reduction will be seen as a victory.

How can the situation in the Jungle be our problem and not theirs...what world are you in?  Yes the vast majority of them are not interested in living in France and simply see the UK as their holy grail, but if it were not for open borders in France (which we oppose) those people would not have been able to travel to the Calais area in the first place. So it is the fault of the EU and the french, simple as! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scottish skier said:

No it's not. 

Airlines might ask to see your visa before you board, but only because they can get in trouble with the country of origin for landing you there without one. 

Countries may place controls on who is coming in, but rarely on who is leaving. Well, not unless they're North Korea or something. I could get in a yacht tomorrow to sail to Morocco; I don't have to tell the British authorities I plan to do that.

If a migrant sneaks into France then jumps in a boat heading out of French waters, the French are not obliged to stop them. They're doing so at the moment because we're all EU members and we have a bi-lateral agreement with them.

Incorrect.....IF the border is relocated to Kent the whole game changes and anyone wishing to travel to the UK will need to show a passport before leaving France. Anyway the whole argument is superfluous because it won't be happening, Eurostar is half owned by the french government and the likely loss of revenue from such a controversial move will kill the idea stone dead.....but not before the Remain fearmongers have milked it to death no doubt!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mountain shadow said:

Let's play devils advocate and say the border is now in Kent and French authorities are no longer checking vehicles at Calais. 

Dover then becomes the first point of contact with illegal immigrants. 

How do you propose to deal with them? 

IF the border is relocated to Kent, new rules will be in place and central to that will be the checking of vehicles and passports before leaving france.

Anyone not picked up in france that makes it to the UK would then be returned, along with a fine for the country from which they were allowed to depart illegally.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, The PIT said:

May can't just trigger article 50 just like that whatever you remainers believe. Been explained plenty of times as to why it cannot just simply flick the switch and out we go. 

It sees that remainers want everything rushed so they can then say told you so if it goes wrong.

You confused I don't want it triggered at all, and I expect most remainers feel the same. However I do want the UK side of things clarified so that the economy stops tanking every 5 mins. The gov should be looking at keeping things stable while they make plans. There are many things they should be doing right now here in the UK, but instead they are on a break and those things have to wait unless there's a big emergency. I know that is the normal state of play at this time of year, but things are far from normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, coldcomfort said:

Incorrect.....IF the border is relocated to Kent the whole game changes and anyone wishing to travel to the UK will need to show a passport before leaving France.

Erm, right now you need to show a passport to leave France and that's with the border at Calais. However, that only applies for people travelling by official commercial routes.

I'm talking, obviously, about illegal immigrants. You know, the ones in the Jungle.

No country has legal obligations (under what law if you think it is the case?) to stop people leaving it's borders.

Tomorrow, the UK could pass legislation to allow anyone in and anyone out. Entirely up to it. At the moment, even as part of the EU, it can let in whoever it wants; they just don't get a visa that allows them to travel to the EU.

Hell, it was only recently the UK started scanning passports on people departing by ferry. And that's not a control per see; just monitoring for security purposes.

I don't know if the French ask for passports to board ferries out of France.

Anyway, if some illegals get into a boat to cross the channel, the French have no legal obligation to stop them. After all, why bother, as soon as they enter British waters it's Britain's problem. Unless we have bilateral agreement / are part of the EU; then it's a problem both need to solve together.

That was my point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, coldcomfort said:

along with a fine for the country from which they were allowed to depart illegally.  

How are you going to enforce this fine?

Under which legal jurisdiction would the court issuing it be operating?

Obviously not under the EU.

And, in terms of forced repatriation... if you are putting people by force onto French soil without the permission of the French government, that could be taken as an invasion / act of war.

Edited by scottish skier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, coldcomfort said:

IF the border is relocated to Kent, new rules will be in place and central to that will be the checking of vehicles and passports before leaving france.

Anyone not picked up in france that makes it to the UK would then be returned, along with a fine for the country from which they were allowed to depart illegally.  

 

How do you intend to force the French to check every vehicle thoroughly?

How will you return an illegal immigrant to France if you don't know if they actually came via France?

Even if you know they travelled via France how will you force the French to take them back? 

Edited by mountain shadow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, coldcomfort said:

Incorrect.....IF the border is relocated to Kent the whole game changes and anyone wishing to travel to the UK will need to show a passport before leaving France. Anyway the whole argument is superfluous because it won't be happening, Eurostar is half owned by the french government and the likely loss of revenue from such a controversial move will kill the idea stone dead.....but not before the Remain fearmongers have milked it to death no doubt!  

The Eurostar is of vastly more benefit to London and the South East than it is to the French government. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, scottish skier said:

Erm, right now you need to show a passport to leave France and that's with the border at Calais. However, that only applies for people travelling by official commercial routes.

I'm talking, obviously, about illegal immigrants. You know, the ones in the Jungle.

No country has legal obligations (under what law if you think it is the case?) to stop people leaving it's borders.

Tomorrow, the UK could pass legislation to allow anyone in and anyone out. Entirely up to it. At the moment, even as part of the EU, it can let in whoever it wants; they just don't get a visa that allows them to travel to the EU.

Hell, it was only recently the UK started scanning passports on people departing by ferry. And that's not a control per see; just monitoring for security purposes.

I don't know if the French ask for passports to board ferries out of France.

Anyway, if some illegals get into a boat to cross the channel, the French have no legal obligation to stop them. After all, why bother, as soon as they enter British waters it's Britain's problem. Unless we have bilateral agreement / are part of the EU; then it's a problem both need to solve together.

That was my point. 

The french have been calling for the scrapping of the Le Touquet agreement for years, so in or out of the EU this was always going to be a hot potato and just highlights how ineffective everyone has been in dealing with the situation. Just as with post Brexit Britain, this channel situation is organic and things will change as new circumstances unfold. Even if it were to happen though, Le Touquet says there has to be a minimum of 2 years notice, so plenty of time for the french and the EU to sort this mess they alone created.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, alexisj9 said:

You confused I don't want it triggered at all, and I expect most remainers feel the same. However I do want the UK side of things clarified so that the economy stops tanking every 5 mins. The gov should be looking at keeping things stable while they make plans. There are many things they should be doing right now here in the UK, but instead they are on a break and those things have to wait unless there's a big emergency. I know that is the normal state of play at this time of year, but things are far from normal.

Quite right...The only result I'll be happy with is if Article 50 is perpetually kicked into the long grass. You never know, Farage, Johnson, Gove and IDS might be found hiding in the rough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, coldcomfort said:

Well if Sarky thinks moving the border to Kent will mean the Jungle also relocates with it he will be sadly mistaken. If the border returns to Kent we will find it much easier to spot illegal immigrants arriving on our shores. As far as the law is concerned it is incumbent on all nations to ensure those that leave their borders have the required paperwork to enter the country they travel to, otherwise they will be immediately returned and a fine issued to the country from which they departed.  So whilst the french may have the right, they will probably realise quite quickly that exercising it will work against them.

You right wingers really like threatening foreign governments!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mike Meehan said:

In this we are quite within our democratic rights and do not see any reason to roll over and acquiesce just because people from the leave side keep telling us that that is what we should do.

You're obviously welcome to feel however you feel, and take whichever action based on that you wish. But I don't really understand what it is you're wanting to do? If you're meaning you want to voice your opinion and share your displeasure at what's gone, then obviously that's fine, but it's not like me or anyone else is saying you can't from what I can see. If your ideal outcome of that is that another ref is held, or that the politicians hold off from article 50, then I've no issue with that either, I don't agree as it goes because I think we need to be careful to respect the outcome of the initial vote, but if that's your view then I respect it.

But to flesh out what I'm saying with an example, as tbh I'm wondering if you're misunderstanding me. If a business owner feels similarly to you, communicates how downbeat he is, and how he feels it's all going to negatively impact his business to his employees, then that makes them start to worry about their jobs, which in turn makes them unhappy, causes their productivity to drop, perhaps some leave for other jobs, and suddenly the prophecy starts to fulfill itself within that business, regardless of how the economy is doing overall.

At this point we don't know how Brexit is going to play out, it may be the nightmare that some think it will be, it may be the land of gold and honey that others think it'll be, and it maybe something in between (imo the most likely scenario). But it'll be worse if enough business owners, politicians, media orgs etc continually paint the worst case scenario as reality before we've even seen what the impacts of the vote are likely to be, let alone what the terms of the deal which is done are. 

The emotional and economic side are linked, I agree with you there, but imo they're also also separate, hence my thinking that 2 debates are better than lumping it all together, as frankly it muddies the waters a tad when it comes to talking about economic stuff, which is a bit more dry, a bit more black and white and when it comes to whatever the final outcome is, could be entirely different to how culture, travel, rights to stay in Europe/the UK for people etc end up.

From a personal perspective, when it comes to things like guaranteeing people's right to stay in the UK, and putting things in place which ensure we do still ensure we're part of Europe, and not inward looking are things we need to prioritise. I don't really understand why the right to stay can't be sorted asap and certainly shouldn't be used as some sort of negotiation position. But the economic stuff is going to take much longer, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who has different views when it comes to the economic side of things, and all the rest, which again says to me it'd be worth separating the two debates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, davehsug said:

You right wingers really like threatening foreign governments!

You left wingers really like appeasing foreign governments!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Paul said:

You're obviously welcome to feel however you feel, and take whichever action based on that you wish. But I don't really understand what it is you're wanting to do? If you're meaning you want to voice your opinion and share your displeasure at what's gone, then obviously that's fine, but it's not like me or anyone else is saying you can't. 

But to flesh out what I'm saying with an example, as tbh I'm wondering if you're misunderstanding me. If a business owner feels similarly to you, communicates how downbeat he is, and how he feels it's all going to negatively impact his business to his employees, then that makes them start to worry about their jobs, which in turn makes them unhappy, causes their productivity to drop, perhaps some leave for other jobs, and suddenly the prophecy starts to fulfill itself within that business, regardless of how the economy is doing overall.

At this point we don't know how Brexit is going to play out, it may be the nightmare that some think it will be, it may be the land of gold and honey that others think it'll be, and it maybe something in between (imo the most likely scenario). But it'll be worse if enough business owners, politicians, media orgs etc continually paint the worst case scenario as reality before we've even seen what the impacts of the vote are likely to be, let alone what the terms of the deal which is done are. 

The emotional and economic side are linked, I agree with you there, but imo they're also also separate, hence my thinking that 2 debates are better than lumping it all together, as frankly it muddies the waters a tad when it comes to talking about economic stuff, which frankly is a bit more dry, a bit more black and white and when it comes to whatever the final outcome is, could be entirely different to how culture, travel, rights to stay in Europe/the UK for people etc end up.

From a personal perspective, when it comes to things like guaranteeing people's right to stay in the UK, and putting things in place which ensure we do still ensure we're part of Europe, and not inward looking are things we need to prioritise. I don't really understand why the right to stay can't be sorted asap and certainly shouldn't be used as some sort of negotiation position. But the economic stuff is going to take much longer, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who has different views when it comes to the economic side of things, and all the rest, which again says to me it'd be worth separating the two debates.

Paul, in the first place us remainers did not ask for this situation in the first place - it was thrust upon us by a mixture of David Cameron's desire to keep his right wingers under control and to try and take some of the wind out of the sails of UKIP, I doubt many have illusions about that.

In the second place I suspect that the majority of people both on this forum and out there generally are not business owners, politicians or involved in the media to the extent where our opinions would be taken notice of to the extent it would be detrimental to business generally, so the question of whether we are upbeat or downbeat as individuals does not really apply.

As it is we remainers are not just looking at the short term or medium term effects as I believe the leavers are but in general looking at the much longer term effects several generations into the future by which time we will all have popped our clogs but hopefully happy in leaving something sustainable to carry on.

In both scenarios there will be inevitable changes in culture because this evolves with time and circumstances.  

The third factor is that there are two sides of the fence regarding this matter - the leavers believe that there will be more business opportunities outside the EU though none are specified per se and whether they come to fruition in sufficient numbers to warrant such a leaving is completely unknowable at this stage and will remain so until they actually do come into force.

On the other hand the remainers already know what we were getting and would have continued get had we stayed in, or likely to get should we opt to remain because it will be the same as before.

The question of business, economic, cultural and political values are all inter-linked and each has a bearing on the other.

In such an subject as this where the final consequences have the potential to become far reaching it is important to keep an overall picture of what is happening - to separate it out into various fragments will detract from this with the potential of making this overall picture inaccurate.

So when deciding our future the complete package has to be considered which includes peoples' rights to stay and movement - it can't really be considered piecemeal.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, mike Meehan said:

In the second place I suspect that the majority of people both on this forum and out there generally are not business owners, politicians or involved in the media to the extent where our opinions would be taken notice of to the extent it would be detrimental to business generally, so the question of whether we are upbeat or downbeat as individuals does not really apply.

No-one said you or anyone else in these discussions needed to be upbeat, in fact I think my post above specifically said that as far as I'm concerned, people are clearly entitled to voice whatever opinion and emotion they wish (I also said pretty much the same earlier too).

Nothing I've talked about is about telling you or anyone else what they can post or feel, I'm talking about the wider brexit picture and simply giving my views. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, mike Meehan said:

Paul, in the first place us remainers did not ask for this situation in the first place - it was thrust upon us by a mixture of David Cameron's desire to keep his right wingers under control and to try and take some of the wind out of the sails of UKIP, I doubt many have illusions about that.

In the second place I suspect that the majority of people both on this forum and out there generally are not business owners, politicians or involved in the media to the extent where our opinions would be taken notice of to the extent it would be detrimental to business generally, so the question of whether we are upbeat or downbeat as individuals does not really apply.

As it is we remainers are not just looking at the short term or medium term effects as I believe the leavers are but in general looking at the much longer term effects several generations into the future by which time we will all have popped our clogs but hopefully happy in leaving something sustainable to carry on.

In both scenarios there will be inevitable changes in culture because this evolves with time and circumstances.  

The third factor is that there are two sides of the fence regarding this matter - the leavers believe that there will be more business opportunities outside the EU though none are specified per se and whether they come to fruition in sufficient numbers to warrant such a leaving is completely unknowable at this stage and will remain so until they actually do come into force.

On the other hand the remainers already know what we were getting and would have continued get had we stayed in, or likely to get should we opt to remain because it will be the same as before.

The question of business, economic, cultural and political values are all inter-linked and each has a bearing on the other.

In such an subject as this where the final consequences have the potential to become far reaching it is important to keep an overall picture of what is happening - to separate it out into various fragments will detract from this with the potential of making this overall picture inaccurate.

So when deciding our future the complete package has to be considered which includes peoples' rights to stay and movement - it can't really be considered piecemeal.    

Yes indeed, what we were guaranteed to continue getting was uncontrolled immigration from the EU, which would have kept the net migration in the 100's of thousands rather than reduced to the 10's of thousands pledged by this government. What we knew we would get as a result is continued pressure on already massively stretched public services, further increasing pressure on GP services already stretched to the absolute limit and yet greater downward pressure on wages. 52% of the country recognised these and other problems associated with being in the EU and decided they did not like what they saw, 48% either decided better the devil you know or like you concluded the potential risks involved outweighed the potential gains. 

The point is no one really knows how this is all going to pan out, but Paul is absolutely right in saying all the doom and gloom (whether business or personal) can and will have a detrimental effect on things overall, creating a feel bad factor rather than a feel good one. Once on that slippery slope it will be very difficult to get off it, so imo it's time for you to recognise and accept we are where we are and pulling in the same direction is the only real option open to all of us. As Paul also alluded too no one in their right mind expects all our problems to be solved the minute we leave the EU, but equally no one on their right mind believes that in this day and age the whole economic and social structure of the UK is going to implode catastrophically either - the reality lies somewhere in the middle and both sides should have equal input into where our sticks are ultimately placed, but meaningful input as opposed to constant looking back in anger. 

 

Edited by coldcomfort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Paul said:

No-one said you or anyone else in these discussions needed to be upbeat, in fact I think my post above specifically said that as far as I'm concerned, people are clearly entitled to voice whatever opinion and emotion they wish (I also said pretty much the same earlier too).

Nothing I've talked about is about telling you or anyone else what they can post or feel, I'm talking about the wider brexit picture and simply giving my views. 

I understand that Paul, though at this stage I prefer EU picture to Brexit picture - you may have gathered I have not got to the stage yet of giving up on this :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...