Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

FraserburghFreddie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120015505#Comment_120015505

There`s not much point engaging with you as your below standard posting style consists of either foul mouthed rants or personal insults.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120015508#Comment_120015508

Do you have anything to actually add ?

So Britain is multi cultural because many cultures move there. Wow glad that was explained to us.

Also you seem to have a problem with Irish people talking about the UK but it's perfectly fine for you to "berate" the Irish about our country. If only Paddy would just shut and know their place.

Gerry T

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120015508#Comment_120015508

The point is, the UK's new system is you have to be migrant in the UK to claim asylum, but you can't get in to make a claim as a migrant, a real catch 22. In other words the legal route caters for ZERO people. Unless you're on the special list which includes the likes of Ukraine, but even at that it's not easy.

This position the UK govt has taken is not in tune with so many people from the UK that have very been very generous to migrants, these policies don't represent a lot of UK people.

ambro25

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120015559#Comment_120015559

There isn’t much point engaging with your either, any response of substance to your posts simply invites yet another strawman or other facile bit of goalpost-shifting whattaboutery.

The asylum seekers debate in the specific context of Brexit was done to death in these Brexit themed-threads, since before the 2016 referendum. Before dinghies came to the headlining fore, immigrants were Chunnel trains- and HGV- surfing for years, and there were similar noises from the Kippers and similar others about the Calais campslikewise for years. France and the UK put much of an end to that, while the UK was still an EU member state. But I’m old enough to remember those Farage posters.

Let’s just stop the pretence already. You just want easy solutions, provided by anyone else but England -never mind those responsible for the mess, who promised you that white anglo-saxon immigrant-free moon on a stick 6+ years ago- and you aren’t one little bit interested in understanding the sheer complexity of the problem in the first place, never mind discussing and debating it constructively.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120015934#Comment_120015934

Just the latest in a long line of whataboutery merchants on this thread. Most of whom eventually slink off never to be seen again like our little amphibian friend who was full sure Ireland would be out of the single market by now.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120015508#Comment_120015508

The Home Office under May had advertising vans driving around London with signs telling foreign migrants to go home - the hostile environment - literally writ large.

What type of person promotes that kind of thing?

retalivity

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120015541#Comment_120015541

10 years? Will be closer to 50 unless something catastrophic happens, eg a new world war. English belligerence is not for turning....soon

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120015179#Comment_120015179

No, no. It's important to understand that the EU rules about this don't impose any obligation at all on entrants to the EU about where they claim asylum. If they enter in country A and claim asylum in country B that's absolutely fine; they are doing nothing wrong. Until they claim, they are liable to deportation, but it is not a breach of any law to be liable to deportation. Nor are member states obliged to deport anyone liable to deportation; this is something they may do, not something they must do. And there is nothing wrong with travelling from country A to country B, within the Schengen zone.

What the EU rules regulate is how member states must respond to claims for asylum. Continuing the example above, when an application is made in country B, country B can either (a) handle the application itself, or (b) return the claimant to country A, for country A to handle the application. (There is some practical give-and-take about numbers of returns; there's a recognition that the system would break down if everyone was returned to Greece or Italy.)

It is wrong to think that the asylum seeker has an obligation to claim in Country A, or that Country A has an obligation to prevent the asylum seeker from travelling to Country B and applying there. EU law requires neither of these things.

Meanwhile, the UK has adopted a set of policies which strongly incentivise undocumented entry to the UK. You can't apply for asylum unless you are in the UK, but you can't get documentation to enter the UK if they think you might apply for asylum. So the only way to apply for asylum in the UK is to enter it undocumented. And, if you do succeed in doing that, the UK cannot return you to the first EU country which you entered, having voluntarily withdrawn from the arrangements for doing so. So if you don't want your claim processed in, say, Greece, your best bet is to head for the UK.

All three policy positions were adopted freely and unilaterally by the UK. Attempts to blame the EU for them, or to claim that the EU has some kind of responsibility to protect the UK from the wholly forseeable consequences of the UK's policy choices are pathetic; I expect most Britons are mortified to see them advanced. Of all the embarrassing aspects of Brexit Britain, this must be one of the most embarrassing.

Strazdas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120016713#Comment_120016713

I mentioned further up that the EU wanted to retain the Dublin Agreement arrangements with Britain but the UK effectively told them "Forget it pal, it's not happening". In fact, they strongly insisted on leaving it at the earliest possible opportunity.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120016531#Comment_120016531

You'd be surprised. Given the age gradient in the Brexit vote, which is steep, someone (was it John Curtice? Don't quote me on that) has estimated that through, ahem, demographic leakage, support from Brexit has been dropping at close to 1% a year since 2016. And that's before anyone changes their mind because, in the light of experience, they realise that Brexit wasn't such a crash-hot idea.

We're already at the position - in fact, we have been for about 18 months now - where a clear majority of the population recognises that Brexit was a mistake. But a significant chunk of that majority don't want to do anything about it, either because they are exhausted and depressed by the whole Brexit process and can't face any more of it, or because they think the error is not recoverable — the sweet, opt-out laden deal that the UK had as an EU member state is gone and is not coming back, and they don't want EU membership if the cost includes, e.g., giving up sterling.

In short, it's not so much English belligerence that sustains Brexit now - there's plenty of that about, but nothing like a majority - as English depression and misery. And I don't see that enduring for 50 years. In politics a generation is somewhere between 7 years and two parliaments - after that lapse of time, all triumphs and all disasters are history, and they have minimal effect on current voting patterns. Well within 10 years, it will become acceptable for a major political party to say "Our situation in Europe isn't serving us well. We need to change things." And the Labour party in particular would be mad not to say that. The considerations which stop them saying it now will have less and less traction as time passes.

rock22

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120015365#Comment_120015365

The matter of EU Dublin III process was prompted by Yvette Cooper suggesting , in the context of asylum seekers in the UK , that she wanted the Dublin III to apply. (see post 14678 or listen, if you can , to Cooper on BBC Laura Kuenssberg shows on BBc1 last Sunday).

If the Eu procedure and policies apply then , for the purpose of those policies, UK would not be a third country. There is a clearly stated objective of a fair distribution of refugees amongst all countries involved, currently EU, and in that context it clearly would be seen that the UK have taken fewer than a fair share of all refugees.

It is not the EU who are saying their policies should apply, it is the Shadow Home Secretary who is suggesting they should apply. I suspect, however, in keeping with usual British exceptionalism, that she wants to pick and choose what parts of the agreement should apply to the UK. I also posted previously about a call from Peter Hain, suggesting that the EU should change in entry policy to suit the UK. It is that very UK exceptionalism, embedded in Labour as well as the Conservatives, that is the reason why the UK will not re-joining the EU within the next few decades.

It is interesting that this focus on immigration across the channel is happening when there is a real danger that the UK economy could collapse due to a labour shortage , link -

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/dec/20/exodus-of-more-than-half-a-million-from-workforce-puts-uk-economy-at-risk

My essential point is that, now that the UK have left the EU, they need to start solving there own problems, real or imaginary, and not look to the EU all the time for either solutions or for someone to blame.

FraserburghFreddie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120016124#Comment_120016124

I'm not sticking up for her (she said one thing and did the opposite) but I am surprised May would agree with that kind of unpleasantness.As a church going member of the CofE I'd have thought she'd be more tolerant and compassionate than that.

Peregrinus

People migrating to seek protection from oppression is, by its nature, an international phenomenon. The notion that it is best managed by states acting autonomously and unilaterally is a pretty silly one, and the international community has treated is as something that requires to be addressed on a multilateral level for, oh, 70 or 80 years now.

True Brexit Ideology™ requires British politicians to pretend that the UK empowers itself by asserting its sovereignty and autonomy and, therefore, by addressing issues (including this one) unilaterally. By "taking back control of our borders" they will manage the phenomenon of asylum seekers more effectively without relying on the co-operation of lesser nations.

This is working exactly as well as you would expect. Brexiters are currently at the point of blaming the EU for the fact that Brexit is not having the outcomes that it was never going to have, but that they assured people it would have. But it requires unqualified and unquestioning commitment to Brexitry to even pretend to take this seriously. Fewer and fewer people in the UK have that kind of commitment, so the wheels are going to fall off this effort fairly soon.

So, Cooper's suggestion that the UK should participate in Dublin III may be half-baked, and may raise more questions than it answers. But it at least implies a recognition that this issue has to be addressed co-operatively and multilaterally, rather than autonomously and unilaterally. That's a step in the right direction, or maybe at least a toe in the water of a step in the right direction, if I can mix my metaphors.

Things get really gritty when the UK gets to the point of seriously engaging with multilateral efforts to manage this issue. For years now Tory politicians, egged on by a rabid right-wing press, have given the UK public the impression that the UK is deluged with asylum seekers, that all asylum seekers head for the UK, that most of them are bogus, etc, etc. None of these things are true. Multilateral efforts, to have any chance of success, must be grounded in reality. The reality is that, relative to its size and population, the UK does rather less of the heavy lifting of dealing with asylum seekers than most European countries of comparable size and wealth, and a realistic multilateral effort will probably involve the UK doing more, rather than less, than it does now. That will be a hard sell to a population schooled in bare-faced lies and demonisation of asylum seekers, and increasingly perceiving their country to have been disempowered and impoverished by Brexit.

Fr Tod Umptious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120016920#Comment_120016920

For years now Tory politicians, egged on by a rabid right-wing press, have given the UK public the impression that the UK is deluged with asylum seekers, that all asylum seekers head for the UK, that most of them are bogus, etc, etc.

A bit like this site and many posters when talking about Ireland.

FraserburghFreddie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120016920#Comment_120016920

Not sure the world (certainly the rest of Europe who were involved in WW2)would agree with your claim people only sort protection from persecution and oppression in the last 70 years or so.Many displaced citizens of Europe found sanctuary in Britain during that period.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120016942#Comment_120016942

As I recall, there was no shortage of xenophobes back then either. Not sure this is a good point for your argument, such as it is.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120016942#Comment_120016942

That's not what was said in the slightest.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120016918#Comment_120016918

Hahaha ya because church going is a sign of moral standing or kindness to fellow humans.

Hermy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120017045#Comment_120017045

Was just going to say something similar.

It's very often the most fervent church-goers who are the least tolerant or compassionate.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120016918#Comment_120016918

Is it even possible to be a member of the Tory party and also be tolerant and compassionate?

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120017102#Comment_120017102

This would also be my experience having grown up CoI. I've seen churchgoers support all kinds of cruelty for no better reason than sadism. Of course, churches of all stripes do charity work so there's obviously a fair degree of cognitive dissonance going on.

The Church of England was happy to be silent during the war on Iraq, austerity linked to 335,000 deaths and the tapping into racism and xenophobia by the Tories and the Brexit leave campaigns. Of course, they're not above material gain with their appointed members of the House of Lords, their head also being the unelected head of state, their privileged position above all other religions in this country and their endowment fund of £10.1 billion. None of this stops them from moralising about issues such as same-sex relationships though.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120017177#Comment_120017177

Depends on what you mean by member and compassionate? Tory voters may be more likely to be involved in volunteering schemes due to their being more affluent than non-Tory voting demographics. They also are more likely to own homes so they'll likely have time and money to donate. The tiny portion of the population (0.2%) who are Tory members specifically... I doubt many of them have any interest in anything beyond financial gain and the usual cruelty. Witness the virtue-signalling by Truss and Sunak, the latter having to run unopposed to become PM in the second leadership election this year.

FraserburghFreddie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120017177#Comment_120017177

Growing up I remember being horrified by the rants of Ian paisley I'd see on the news.I never encountered any CofE clergy remotely like that.They were generally quietly spoken and mild mannered, certainly not full of fire and brimstone.

I don't trust any of the tories although May did come across as not as bad as many of them imo.i noticed the leader of the dup wears a fish symbol on his lapel which is bizarre as they don't appear to show much in the way of Christian values.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120017824#Comment_120017824

I think the fish symbol is probably a protest at the EU fishing quotas that affect NI fishing industry.

Strazdas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120017177#Comment_120017177

It certainly is, but the more decent and honourable members of the party have been completely side lined by the Brexit / UKIP zealots.

serfboard

This video here is interesting from two points of view: one is the response of the audience, which, if the Question Time audience is in any way representative, indicates that people in Britain (England) believe, in increasing numbers, that Brexit is a disaster, and two is to watch what Rees-Smug does when he's caught out:

https://twitter.com/g_gosden/status/1603802107311800321

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120019003#Comment_120019003

It's basically a national TV version of what happens on this thread.

Someone blasts in with a "benefit of Brexit" which is incredibly easily debunked which leads to falling back into attempted gaslighting.

AlmightyCushion

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120019003#Comment_120019003

In fairness, they both could be telling the truth here. Mogg is saying that wine imports/exports from/to Australia and New Zealand are much easier which could be true. The guy in the audience is saying import/exporting wine has got much, much harder which could also be true if he doesn't do much business with Australia and New Zealand which is probably the case. So, Mogg may not have been caught out as such but still doesn't change the fact Brexit is a disaster and their solution is to make deals with other markets that largely don't matter because trading with the EU is now a pain in the hole to do business with thanks to Brexit and the version of Brexit they sought.

Strazdas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120020314#Comment_120020314

Britain imports far more wine from the EU than from Aus / NZ, so it was really only a diversionary tactic from him.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120020381#Comment_120020381

For what it's worth, in Australia the wine exporters association guidance to its members is not presenting Brexit as advantageous. The main consequence of Brexit for Australian producers is that the EU and the UK are now two separate markets with similar but not identical regulatory regimes. The regimes are different enough that wine has to be separately labelled for either the GB market or the EU+NI market - a bottle cannot be labelled in a way that satisfies the requirements of both markets. The certification requirements for the two markets also differ.

This isn't a huge deal, since most Australian wine exported to Europe is exported in bulk and bottled in Europe. Still, it's a complication; from the point of bottling onwards wine destined for the GB market has to be segregated from wine destined for the EU+NI market, which wasn't previously necessary.

One respect in which the UK regime is ostensibly better for Australian exporters is that the UK no longer requires certain certification documents which are required by the EU. But these documents are generated before the wine is exported from Australian, and practice in the industry is to generate them for all wine exported, so that consignments can be directed to the EU market if and as required. And this illustrates one of the points about Brexit that is not always understood, especially in the UK. The UK is simply too small a market for most of the world to care very much about it. Australian wine exports are certified to EU standards even if they are not, in fact, going to the EU. The notional advantage of not having to certify wine for the GB market is offset by the trouble and cost of identifying, and separately handling, wine for the GB market at the point of export from Australia.

The UK Australia FTA does abolish UK tariffs on Australian wines and this could be real benefit, except that it is more than offset by a restructuring of UK excise on alcoholic drinks. The estimated £26 million saving in import duties is more than cancelled by the estimated £70 million increase in excise duties.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120016942#Comment_120016942

That's not my claim. The phenomenon of people seeking, and obtaining, asylum goes back a long way; I know that. MY claim is that for the past 70 years or so it hasn't been treated as a matter in which each country adopts and implements its own policies; it's a phenomenon that needs to be addressed not unilaterally but multilaterally, through instruments such as the Refugee Convention, Dublin III, etc, and agencies such as the UNHCR.

Brexiters pretended that, by Brexiting and reclaiming "control of our borders" the UK would be able, acting unilaterally, to address the phenomenon more effectively. This was, and is, nonsense.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120020480#Comment_120020480

The idea that Britain is equal to or greater than the EU as a trading partner is of course one of the two big lies behind Brexit.

And I think it is a reality many have yet to come to terms with.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120020551#Comment_120020551

What's the other one?

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120020558#Comment_120020558

Brexit would stop all immigrants and the UK would do better without them.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120020480#Comment_120020480

"The UK Australia FTA does abolish UK tariffs on Australian wines and this could be real benefit, except that it is more than offset by a restructuring of UK excise on alcoholic drinks. The estimated £26 million saving in import duties is more than cancelled by the estimated £70 million increase in excise duties."

When taxes were brought up, Mogg tried to duck by saying "The Chancellor instituted..." as if to say, not our fault.

Last I looked, the Chanceller's a member of HMG and a Tory MP.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120020480#Comment_120020480

Many EU countries, including quite soon Ireland, have specific alcohol labelling rules that means there isn't really an EU-wide bottle label on virtually any alcohol products anyway.

You do seem some mergers, e.g. a lot of Irish craft beers use the same label here and various Nordic countries, meaning they have multiple different warnings and multiple bottle return scheme logos.

Most producers are not going to be willing to have our cancer warning on bottles sold anywhere else.

FraserburghFreddie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120020701#Comment_120020701

With it being the festive season, I've been looking at which drink I'm going to be buying,out of curiosity I compared like for like cost between the UK and Ireland and am puzzled as to why it's considerably more expensive in Ireland and wondered why that is?

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120021131#Comment_120021131

Higher duty, except on strong beer where its lower. Also neoprohibitionist rules against discounting and a high minimum unit price

ArmaniJeanss

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120021131#Comment_120021131

Taxing reasons likely part of it. We have higher VAT, and possibly higher Excise rates. We also have MUP (minimum unit pricing) since the start of 2022 which has pushed cheaper stuff upwards.

There may also be commercial reasons (e.g., higher minimum wage, insurance costs, business rates) which drive the retail price for the customer.

yagan

One phenomenon of the post soviet era was the dramatic rise in alcohol abuse. There was tacit government support for keeping the masses sozzled, and I can imagine Britain will go that way too rather than acknowledging decline.

Another point on oz wine is that aside from certs a declining gbp has producers chasing other markets to compensate.

ancapailldorcha

In a surprise to nobody:

A survey by the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) has prompted the business lobby group to present the government with five urgent recommendations for enhancing the agreement, which has left many exporters struggling to sell into the EU under the current terms.

More than half (56%) of the BCC members surveyed who trade with the EU said they had experienced problems complying with new rules for exporting goods, while 45% reported issues trading in services. Overall, as many as 77% of firms trading under the deal said it had not helped them to increase sales or expand.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/21/brexit-deal-not-boosted-business-uk-firms?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

I'd like to say something but I feel like there's no point at this stage. What people were warned about has happened but it gets spun as some sort of victory because the UK didn't become a third world country.

Grassey

Ahhhh so the red tape is "on their (EU) side"... Still with the EU causing all the issues...

Mark Spencer, the farming minister, has been giving interviews and he told Times Radio this morning he claimed the government did want to reduce “red tape” for exporters to the EU. He said:

There’s always more that we can do to try and ease the way and the passage of trade. We’re very keen to do that. We’re a free and open trading nation, we want to work closely with our EU colleagues, and we want to try and reduce that red tape, if there is any red tape, on their side of the Channel. So, of course, we want to keep those channels of trade open in both directions.

Leroy42

The bit that gets me when ministers trot out the line of working with the EU to reduce eed tape, is why the interviewer doesn't simply ask if the minister accepts that Brexit, based on the current deal, has caused an increase in red tape from prior to leaving.

They simply just allow the MP rattle on about reducing the problem without any acceptance of where the problem came from.

Hotblack Desiato

Of course Brexit could have happened without any increase in 'red tape' for exporters - or importers - at all, but the Tories insisted "Brexit means Brexit" etc 🙄 well suck it up.

In fairness to the article it does state the following:

The BCC’s call for action from the government came as research from the Centre for European Reform (CER) thinktank claimed Brexit had shaved 5.5% off GDP, and cost £40bn in tax revenues.

Springford argues that the weaker economy has had a knock-on effect on public finances, contributing to Sunak’s decision to increase taxes.

The Conservative peer Gavin Barwell, who was previously Theresa May’s chief of staff during the then prime minister’s fraught Brexit negotiations, urged his colleagues to acknowledge the impact of leaving the EU on the economy.

“Our politicians can’t go on ignoring this economic self-harm for ever. That doesn’t mean we have to rejoin, but it does mean we need to reduce the very damaging barriers to trade that we have introduced with our nearest neighbours,” he said.

[emphasis mine]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120024518#Comment_120024518

In other words 44% of exporters aren't all that bothered about Brexit. With such a slim majority, the UK government can afford to relax a little.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120025720#Comment_120025720

Doing something that harms 56% of exports is definitely a big deal. Any government who are "relaxed" are not fit to do their jobs.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120025720#Comment_120025720

So because the whole house didn't burn down, everything is fine. It'd be nice if the government could admit that that's the metric we're using now.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120025790#Comment_120025790

"Only 56% of exporters will have problems"

Don't remember seeing that on the side of any buses.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120025824#Comment_120025824

Probably because if the Remainers would have put that on the side of the bus would encourage even more to vote Leave if 44% of exporters were not fussed.

Brexit was stupid and the underlying toxic culture that caused it was even more stupid but the catastrophising since is every bit as toxic and causing divisions to remain in the UK. It's not half as bad (literally bar a few %!) as it could have been. Britain is getting on just fine and is a real and constant threat to Ireland forever regarding competition, NI and so on.

Giving them an FTA is going to be a mistake in the long term. They should not have been given an inch, even if it meant their country going to ruins. Being the adult in the room may not always be in your own interest.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120026225#Comment_120026225

"Britain is getting on just fine..."

Seriously you believe that?

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120026236#Comment_120026236

There seems to be a good few "I hate Brexit btw" posters who do nothing but defend every negative post about Brexit.

Truth is "project fear" were dead right. The "enemy of the people" experts were dead right and Brexit was a sht show. The only defense left Britain didn't completely explode (almost did under Liz Lettuce)