Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

First Up

timetogo1 wrote:

Yeah. Not really by the media or any experts. Some of the dimmer Brexiters are falling back on it though (have a look at loughsides posts) but I haven't heard anybody who knows what they're talking about saying it.

There's two bits to this; policing the EU external border in NI and repairing the UK's reputation as a trustworthy negotiator.

The first bit is fairly easy. Planning for that started the day after the Brexit vote and plans were well advanced by the time the UK bowed to reality and agreed to police traffic between Britain and NI. Those plans will be reactivated with full support across the EU.

The second bit is the UK's problem.

J Mysterio

J Mysterio wrote: »

False equivelance. You are truly ridiculous.
The lengths you will go to in order to defend the indefensible is extraordinary.

This is the mindest the EU is trying to negotiate with. An impossible task.

Aegir wrote: »

ignoring the personal abuse, which i have obviously reported, false equivalence to what?

still waiting for a response to this. do you want to engage in discussion, or was your intention just to troll?

or maybe you have just realised how ridiculous you are?

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Lads, why are ye bothering with this sham?

Time to give CA a swerve for a few days while this works itself out.

for once, we agree.

declanflynn wrote: »

Theres only one thing worse than an english tan, that's an Irish tan

declanflynn wrote: »

No, the tans did way more begging down through history

declanflynn wrote: »

no it wasn't, we specifically asked for a loan with no tan contributions

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

allowing people to leave the Schengen zone unchecked is a breach of the schengen treaty, is it not?

Therefore a breach of international law.

Actually, I'm not sure that it is.

Under the Schengen Convention, cross-border movement is "subject to checks", but that doesn't mean that states are obliged to check everyone crossing; just that they must maintain a regular checking system. Checks are to be carried out "in accordance with uniform principles, within the scope of national powers and national law and taking account of the interests of all Contracting Parties" (which of course doesn't include the UK, whose interests may be disregarded without any violation of the Convention). Furthermore, with regard to the possiblity of people crossing not at authorised crossing points, the obligation is not to check but to use "mobile units to carry out external border surveillance between crossing points" to discourage such crossing.

The other point, of course, is that even if in France were to be in breach of the Schengen Convention in this regard, the UK is not a party to the Schengen Convention, so this wouldn't be a breach of an obligation owed to the UK. So it would still be fair to say that it's a false equivalence between the UK violating its treaty obligations to the EU and France not checking people crossing to the UK to seek asylum protection; the EU's rights are violated by the former but the UK's rights are not violated by the latter.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, I'm not sure that it is.

Under the Schengen Convention, cross-border movement is "subject to checks", but that doesn't mean that states are obliged to check everyone crossing; just that they must maintain a regular checking system. Checks are to be carried out "in accordance with uniform principles, within the scope of national powers and national law and taking account of the interests of all Contracting Parties" (which of course doesn't include the UK, whose interests may be disregarded without any violation of the Convention). Furthermore, with regard to the possiblity of people crossing not at authorised crossing points, the obligation is not to check but to use "mobile units to carry out external border surveillance between crossing points" to discourage such crossing.

this isn't about internal movement within Schengen, so this is irrelevant.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The other point, of course, is that even if in France were to be in breach of the Schengen Convention in this regard, the UK is not a party to the Schengen Convention, so this wouldn't be a breach of an obligation owed to the UK. So it would still be fair to say that it's a false equivalence between the UK violating its treaty obligations to the EU and France not checking people crossing to the UK to seek asylum protection; the EU's rights are violated by the former but the UK's rights are not violated by the latter.

who is making the equivalence?

France signed up to the Schengen treaty. this includes an obligation to check people leaving. If they knowingly fail to do this, then they are breaching the agreement they signed with the other Schengen members.

RobMc59

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, I'm not sure that it is.

Under the Schengen Convention, cross-border movement is "subject to checks", but that doesn't mean that states are obliged to check everyone crossing; just that they must maintain a regular checking system. Checks are to be carried out "in accordance with uniform principles, within the scope of national powers and national law and taking account of the interests of all Contracting Parties" (which of course doesn't include the UK, whose interests may be disregarded without any violation of the Convention). Furthermore, with regard to the possiblity of people crossing not at authorised crossing points, the obligation is not to check but to use "mobile units to carry out external border surveillance between crossing points" to discourage such crossing.

The other point, of course, is that even if in France were to be in breach of the Schengen Convention in this regard, the UK is not a party to the Schengen Convention, so this wouldn't be a breach of an obligation owed to the UK. So it would still be fair to say that it's a false equivalence between the UK violating its treaty obligations to the EU and France not checking people crossing to the UK to seek asylum protection; the EU's rights are violated by the former but the UK's rights are not violated by the latter.

The significance of this is we are constantly hearing about the super efficient EU having every base covered and how the UK will be brought to its knees by border controls etc,The supposed exclusion of the UK from EU financial affairs hasn't happened either because the EU is'nt organised enough so UK dominance continues.

Aegir

Aegir wrote: »

France signed up to the Schengen treaty. this includes an obligation to check people leaving. If they knowingly fail to do this, then they are breaching the agreement they signed with the other Schengen members.

I find it hard to believe any country would sign an international treaty obliging them to police the entire length of their border ensuring no one leaves illegally lest they break international law. Surely any lack of infrastructure along any length of border thus allowing illegal exit would open a country up to accusations it let people leave.

I imagine it refers to standard ports of entry and exit. But you can provide info if you have it and I'd be interested in reading why countries would sign it. Or we could move to what is currently happening and not some bizarre multi-day thread of utterly worthless conversation.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I find it hard to believe any country would sign an international treaty obliging them to police the entire length of their border ensuring no one leaves illegally lest they break international law. Surely any lack of infrastructure along any length of border thus allowing illegal exit would open a country up to accusations it let people leave.

I imagine it refers to standard ports of entry and exit. But you can provide info if you have it and I'd be interested in reading why countries would sign it. Or we could move to what is currently happening and not some bizarre multi-day thread of utterly worthless conversation.

I have made my points pretty clear. I see no need to discuss it further.

ohnonotgmail

Aegir wrote: »

this isn't about internal movement within Schengen, so this is irrelevant.



who is making the equivalence?

France signed up to the Schengen treaty. this includes an obligation to check people leaving. If they knowingly fail to do this, then they are breaching the agreement they signed with the other Schengen members.

that is between them and the other schengen members.

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

The significance of this is we are constantly hearing about the super efficient EU having every base covered and how the UK will be brought to its knees by border controls etc,

You're not hearing this from me. If the UK is brought to its knees, it will be by the consequences of the policy choices the UK has freely made.

RobMc59 wrote: »

The supposed exclusion of the UK from EU financial affairs hasn't happened either because the EU is'nt organised enough so UK dominance continues.

Less dramatically, the "supposed exclusion of the UK from EU financial affairs" hasn't happened because we're still in transition. AT the end of transition, if there is no deal and if the UK persists in its position of violating the WA, there is no realistic possibility of equivalence decisions which would allow UK-based financial service providers to operate in the EU in the way they do now. There will be short-term relief measures, some for 12 months and some for 24 months, to allow EU-based customers to transfer their business it institution licenced to operate in the single market. All of this won't exactly bring the City to its knees, but if it persists over time it would see a significant outflow of business, capital and jobs to EU financial centres, and some also to New York. Exactly how signficant, we'll have to wait and see.

RobMc59

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that is between them and the other schengen members.

I think Ireland dodged a bullet when they were unable to join schengen,it has been exposed as open to abuse at best and potentially can be used by terrorists to roam around at will after entering Europe unchecked which is a very unsatisfactory situation.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that is between them and the other schengen members.

it doesn't matter who it is between, it is part of an international treaty and the poster I responded to suggested that France knowingly break that.

Donald Trump

Aegir wrote: »

it doesn't matter who it is between, it is part of an international treaty and the poster I responded to suggested that France knowingly break that.

They don't break it. UK is not a party to the treaty.

ohnonotgmail

Aegir wrote: »

it doesn't matter who it is between, it is part of an international treaty and the poster I responded to suggested that France knowingly break that.

if they suggested that franc knowingly broke that agreement they need to provide evidence of same. none has been produced. and even if they have "knowingly" broken that agreement it is nothing to do with britain.

ArmaniJeanss

Aegir wrote: »

it doesn't matter who it is between, it is part of an international treaty and the poster I responded to suggested that France knowingly break that.

Presumably like any law, there must be a valid complainant which leads to an investigation.
That I'm aware of, none of the countries who signed up to Schengen seem to think the treaty has been broken.

J Mysterio

Aegir wrote: »

it doesn't matter who it is between, it is part of an international treaty and the poster I responded to suggested that France knowingly break that.

France - unable to catch every person illegally entering and exiting the country.

UK - openly and brazenly breaking International treaty obligations.

Very big difference there. It's a ridiculous, reaching argument, and not really worthy of engaging with.

Donald Trump

Deleted User wrote: »

I find it hard to believe any country would sign an international treaty obliging them to police the entire length of their border ensuring no one leaves illegally lest they break international law.

Sure under what circumstances are these people "leaving illegally"?


Iff people leave French soil, and head out West in a boat they leave French waters at what, 12 miles? Then they are in international waters and that is a reset and nothing to do with anyone.

J Mysterio

J Mysterio wrote: »

France - unable to catch every person illegally entering and exiting the country.

UK - openly and brazenly breaking International treaty obligations.

Very big difference there. It's a ridiculous, reaching argument, and not really worthy of engaging with.

no one said they were the same, you are being rediculous.

while your hear though, maybe you could answer this https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114579565&postcount=4323

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

I think Ireland dodged a bullet when they were unable to join schengen,it has been exposed as open to abuse at best and potentially can be used by terrorists to roam around at will after entering Europe unchecked which is a very unsatisfactory situation.

Surely the CTA has exactly the same characteristics, and has in fact been taken advantage of by terrorists many times over the years?

In general countries outside Schengen (us included) have suffered from terrorist incidents than those inside it, so that notion by staying outside Schengen a country dodges the bullet of terrorism is not really supported by experience.

ActingDanClark

2021

Peregrinus

J Mysterio wrote: »

France - unable to catch every person illegally entering and exiting the country.

UK - openly and brazenly breaking International treaty obligations.

Very big difference there. It's a ridiculous, reaching argument, and not really worthy of engaging with.

Guys, guys - nobody is suggested that France is doing this. One poster suggested that France might adopt a policy of turning a blind eye to people trying to cross to cross to the UK to seek asylum protection. Another poster suggested that, if they did, they would be in breach of international law, like the UK. The position in my view is that they would not be in breach of international law and, if they were, it would not be a breach analogous to the UK's breach. But the main point is that any French breach is entirely hypothetical and speculative, whereas the UK's breach is very real.

CelticRambler

Donald Trump wrote: »

Iff people leave French soil, and head out West in a boat they leave French waters at what, 12 miles? Then they are in international waters and that is a reset and nothing to do with anyone.

Eh, not quite: 12 miles out from France in the English Channel, they're straight into English waters. Where they cross, there is no stretch of "international waters".

It is, however, illegal in France for a person to enter the English Channel/La Manche with the intention of crossing to the far side. That's why all Channel Swimmers cross from Dover to Calais. Nothing to do with Schengen treaties though.

RobMc59 wrote: »

The significance of this is we are constantly hearing about the super efficient EU having every base covered and how the UK will be brought to its knees by border controls etc,The supposed exclusion of the UK from EU financial affairs hasn't happened either because the EU is'nt organised enough so UK dominance continues.

You're confusing two different scenarios. If (note the conditional ) the UK is "brought to its knees by border controls" this'll be as a result of the expected and predictable delay arising from the need to process the lawful traffic - of people and goods - from GB into the EU. The vast majority of immigration and importation is done for legitimate reasons - moving home, studying abroad, using or re-selling merchandise as part of a business, etc. Anyone engaged in this kind of activity does not want to have to deal with the consequences of doing it in a clandestine manner, but right now there's no incentive for the EU to put a huge effort into facilitating GB's migrants or exports.

The way clandestine immigrants are treated and managed is an entirely different affair, and I'm not sure anyone in the EU would be too upset if resources were diverted from managing/frustrating the onward transit of these people from the EU to a third country.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Guys, guys - nobody is suggested that France is doing this. One poster suggested that France might adopt a policy of turning a blind eye to people trying to cross to cross to the UK to seek asylum protection. Another poster suggested that, if they did, they would be in breach of international law, like the UK. The position in my view is that they would not be in breach of international law and, if they were, it would not be a breach analogous to the UK's breach. But the main point is that any French breach is entirely hypothetical and speculative, whereas the UK's breach is very real.

Who said that, because I certainly didn’t.

You and other posters compared it with the U.K. breaking international law I did not.

But you know that, you are just deflecting.

political analyst

Presumably, most people in Northern Ireland wouldn't mind being still under some EU rules regarding trade as long as there is still peace there - meaning there are no customs checkpoints on the border with the Republic.

Furthermore, the Tories have an overwhelming majority at Westminster.

So why do the Tories care what a small group of people in Northern Ireland (DUP members, especially) thinks of the withdrawal agreement?

steddyeddy

political analyst wrote: »

Presumably, most people in Northern Ireland wouldn't mind being still under some EU rules regarding trade as long as there is still peace there - meaning there are no customs checkpoints on the border with the Republic.

Furthermore, the Tories have an overwhelming majority at Westminster.

So why do the Tories care what a small group of people in Northern Ireland (DUP members, especially) thinks of the withdrawal agreement?

I doubt they give two fs to what the DUP think. It's more like something out of the Dominic Cummings playbook.

Aegir

Aegir wrote: »

no one said they were the same, you are being rediculous.

while your hear though, maybe you could answer this https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114579565&postcount=4323

Still waiting.

Seth Brundle

Aegir wrote: »

Still waiting.

I'm still waiting for the Brits to cop on and realise that they've wasted five years on a stupid slow suicide project.
I think both of us will be waiting for another while yet though!

swampgas

swampgas wrote: »

That's deluded. We are part of the EU. Try to keep up.

So are Greece.

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

WE. ARE. THE. EU.

We are members of the EU.

As our fellow members have shown with Greece, they are happy to throw another member under the bus if it's expedient for others.

Seth Brundle

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We are members of the EU.

As our fellow members have shown with Greece, they are happy to throw another member under the bus if it's expedient for others.

What did they do with Greece to throw them under a bus?