nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread III

ancapailldorcha

This thread is for discussing the departure of the UK from the EU. I will move some posts over shortly.

New posters, please read the forum charter before posting.

Regards,

The Politics Mods.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Sam Russell

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

It appears UK citizens without dual nationality will need to apply for ETIAS post-Brexit:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2018/04/25/european-travel-information-and-authorisation-system-etias-council-confirms-agreement-with-european-parliament/

How will this affect us since we are not in Shengen?

Inquitus

Sam Russell wrote: »

How will this affect us since we are not in Shengen?

It won't as we are EU citizens.

An Ciarraioch

Laura Kuenssberg has presumably been alerted by SF to a raft of documents leaked by its Eurogroup:

http://guengl-brexit.eu/index.php/leaked-documents/

Capt'n Midnight

Another potential Brexit cost - they are talking about replicating the €13bn GPS system and it's only going to cost £5Bn "tops" :rolleyes:
Just look at the delays and cost overruns on any government / MoD technology megaprojects to see how likely that is.

Sunk costs in Galileo are £1.2Bn , and Airbus & Co are moving divisions working on it back to the EU.

Galileo: UK plan to launch rival to EU sat-nav system

The UK has spent 1.4bn euros (£1.2bn) on Galileo, which is meant to be Europe's answer to the US GPS system.

...
Graham Turnock, chief executive of the UK Space Agency, said early feasibility work was under way into a UK system, which he said would cost a "lot less" than Galileo, thanks to work already done and "British know-how and ingenuity".

Asked by the BBC's Science Correspondent Jonathan Amos if it could be as much as £5bn, he said "tops".

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/04/25/uk_galileo_exit_agreed_in_march/

Blighty stuffs itself in Galileo airlock and dares Europe to pull the lever

As toys fly from prams over post-Brexit access to sat system, UK.gov is reminded: You agreed to this

Capt'n Midnight

Brexit will need a lot outsourcing. It's another high risk area,even if all goes well it will cost a small fortune. If things don't work out then there may be extra costs, delays, lost revenues, fines and so on and so forth.

The biggest outsourcer isn't as financially stable as you'd like.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/capita-collapse-would-be-far-messier-carillion

Yesterday Capita reported a £513 million annual loss, and now the company, one of the Government’s most favoured outsourcing providers, is planning to raise £701 million from shareholders.
...
Capita is a bigger provider of government contracts. Whereas Carillion had around 450 contracts with government, it is likely that Capita has over 1,000 (data via OpenOpps).

ambro25

Attended a Brexit-themed event tonight held by the British Chamber of Commerce in Luxembourg. The event and discussion panel was finance-biased (what else in Lux, really?) and the panel included very clued-up people, including Brits (asset management & e-payment processors) and a couple with an inside track into the negotiations (eg BIL chairman, ex-Lux FinMin who attended very many EU FinMin meetings during the not-so-distant Greek years).

The consensus was unequivocal, across the board: Brexit will deffo happen, passporting is deffo going, clearing will suffer most at term, London is haemorraging FinTech startups to Berlin and elsewhere, and there isn't a single fin outfit (trading, asset management, insurance, reinsurance) who isn't already engaged in contingency implementation. London (the City) will survive of course, and remain an important fin nexus...but the global top spot is lost for good, and durably.

The compaire ran a show-of-hand poll with us about who believed a deal would be reached, and who didn't. The totals were pretty close (I voted no deal, I believe that will happen through accident due to the timescales involved and the political deadlock in the UK).

Networking around after the talks, I got to speak with the British ambassador in attendance for 15 mins or so. Charming typical Oxbridge type chap, quite personable, so I held back on asking him what it was like working for Boris...might need his help with the British Mrs in times to come, so I played nice

Lemming

ambro25 wrote: »

Networking around after the talks, I got to speak with the British ambassador in attendance for 15 mins or so. Charming typical Oxbridge type chap, quite personable, so I held back on asking him what it was like working for Boris...might need his help with the British Mrs in times to come, so I played nice

What was your take on the British ambassador? Was he full-on JRM/Davis/Bojo or was he somewhat sanguine and slightly embarrassed to be there on matters Brexit? i.e. when you get to the coal-face of the people who have to deal day in day out with their EU counterparts have you found many to be towing the insult-everyone-else-be-arrogant-claim-it-will-be-amazeballs line of the current cabinet & the media.

ambro25

Lemming wrote: »

What was your take on the British ambassador? Was he full-on JRM/Davis/Bojo or was he somewhat sanguine and slightly embarrassed to be there on matters Brexit? i.e. when you get to the coal-face of the people who have to deal day in day out with their EU counterparts have you found many to be towing the insult-everyone-else-be-arrogant-claim-it-will-be-amazeballs line of the current cabinet & the media.

Oh, absolutely the second one. And, as expected of a top-flight career Foreign Office type, he was very good at it: you couldn't embarass him professionally in the papers about anything that he said or replied (to me in semi-private conversation), but you got the message about his position about the topic/issue just fine.

"Consummate professional doing the best of a sh*t sandwich with seconds", would be my take.

ambro25

Double posted somehow, apologies

LeinsterDub

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Another potential Brexit cost - they are talking about replicating the €13bn GPS system and it's only going to cost £5Bn "tops" :rolleyes:
Just look at the delays and cost overruns on any government / MoD technology megaprojects to see how likely that is.

Sunk costs in Galileo are £1.2Bn , and Airbus & Co are moving divisions working on it back to the EU.

Galileo: UK plan to launch rival to EU sat-nav system

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/04/25/uk_galileo_exit_agreed_in_march/

Does the 5 BN include launch systems too. I'm not familiar with may British rockets . Are they going to ask the Russians, Americans or perhaps Musk?

Does British overseas territory include a suitable launch site?

flatty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

flatty wrote: »

I honestly think that the rump of the brexit wing are all a bit dim. This isn't a flippant remark. It is very relevant. I think honestly that they are too thick to nuance anything, too thick to steer any way through this, too thick to be negotiating with the eu, and too thick to realise it.
Unfortunately, I don't think the lady who sent them is any brighter.

No. Apart from the odd exception like Davis, they are all from privileged backgrounds. Boris is an old Etonian. Mogg is an old Etonian. May went to grammar school and Oxford as did Gove, Hague and Redmond. It isn't stupidity, it's arrogance.

That kind of arrogance can only be arrived at through stupidity. The lack of insight required is exclusive to someone not especially bright.

EdgeCase

Just looking through their degrees and qualifications on wikipedia. Mostly just fairly normal 2nd class honours BAs in English, Classics and so on from Oxford etc.

I could fully understand someone with a classics / languages background who was educated in an elite bubble having little grasp of economic reality.

However, David Davis has a pretty heavy weight CV in business and does not come from that kind of elite bubble. It's surprising he's not a lot more pragmatic.

Karen Bradley also stands out as being educated in what seems to be a community school and then going on to do a B.Sc. in Maths in Imperial College.

For Forks Sake

EdgeCase wrote: »

Karen Bradley also stands out as being educated in what seems to be a community school and then going on to do a B.Sc. in Maths in Imperial College.

And her reward... gets dispatched to act as a glorified childminder to the clowns in the North.

She has my sympathies, that is a truly thankless job.

EdgeCase

For Forks Sake wrote: »

And her reward... gets dispatched to act as a glorified childminder to the clowns in the North.

She has my sympathies, that is a truly thankless job.

Not to mention having both hands tied by the DUP deal that's supporting the UK Government.

Peregrinus

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No. Apart from the odd exception like Davis, they are all from privileged backgrounds. Boris is an old Etonian. Mogg is an old Etonian. May went to grammar school and Oxford as did Gove, Hague and Redmond. It isn't stupidity, it's arrogance.

Why would you imagine that because somebody is an old Etonian, or went to a grammar school, they cannot be stupid?

Peregrinus

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Does the 5 BN include launch systems too. I'm not familiar with may British rockets . Are they going to ask the Russians, Americans or perhaps Musk?

Does British overseas territory include a suitable launch site?

There are several options for having satellites launched commercially (including the ESA itself). You don't need an independent launch capacity in order to put up a satellite array.

Peregrinus

ambro25 wrote: »

Of course it’s possible, and far from me the notion that it couldn’t or shouldn’t be: the issue at hand here, is not one of sovereign capacity to amend immigration policies as time goes on and circumstances change, it is that such changes have been performed by the U.K. apparently in complete disregard of their multifarious impacts, turning hitherto-legal undocumented immigrants, some of them so for decades on end, into illegal undocumented immigrants overnight.

Reading between the lines, I gather that you are a legal practitioner, so I’m confident you’re aware of the long-settled principle of legitimate expectations, and it’s relevance in the above context.

Sure, I’m aware of the principle, but actually I don’t think it’s relevant here.

The Windrush generation are not illegal or irregular immigrants who have been led to believe that, because of their long connection with the country and their positive contribution to it, they would be left unmolested. The Windrush generation are, and always have been, completely legal. They are being victimised and even deported because of a change of procedures, under which the onus has suddenly been placed on them to prove their status, years after the circumstances and events which established it, if they are to avoid victimisation/deportation.

I think the problem here is that, historically, the UK has taken advantage of its status as an island nation to implement/police its migration policies at the borders. Because it’s an island (apart from the land border with us since 1922) there are a limited number of entry points. Entrances and exits can be checked at these points; this is relatively straightforward and efficient. Once you’re in, you’re in; it would be very difficult to apply further checks and they could not be very efficient, so not much would be achieved by trying.

This doesn’t work in continental countries with extensive land borders. Of course you can and will try to control entry and exit, but inevitably borders will be much more porous, so you can’t rely on this exclusively. Which is why most continental countries have long had systems of population registration, identity cards, etc. This goes back, I’m pretty sure, to the Napoleonic era, if not before.

(This, incidentally, is why the UK has a Common Travel Area with Ireland. It’s not just a be-nice-to-the-Irish measure; it leads to Ireland, another island nation, keeping its migration policies closely aligned with the UK, and means that people entering the UK from Ireland can generally be taken to be people entitled to enter the UK, so the integrity of the system isn’t threatened, and the UK doesn’t need internal migration controls.)

Right. What has been happening since 2014 is a move away from this approach to migration control. Island nation or not, for whatever reason - globalisation, cheap travel, sheer numbers - the UK’s borders have become more porous, and the UK’s experience - or perception, at any rate - is that implementing migration policy exclusively at the border isn’t as effective as it used to be, or as it needs to be.

So they start moving towards internal population controls. But, partly because they are in denial about the fact that they are doing this, and partly because they are Tories who believe in privatisation, a small state, etc, they don’t do this directly through state agencies; they outsource it to employers, landlords, GPs, schools, etc, etc. The police won’t ask you to produce your papers, but your doctor will; your employer will; your kids’ school will.

A couple of consequences flow from this, but a relevant one in this instance is that it’s entirely foreseeable that a policy implemented in this way will be badly implemented. Basically, you have outsourced implementation to a disconnected and disinterested bunch of people who have no stake in the policy, no overview of the policy and (mostly) haven’t bought into it. And the checks you want them to make are complex and tricky, because UK citizenship and migration law is insanely complicated. At best, they are going to apply a box-ticking, jobsworth approach which takes no account of policy objectives or rationale. So you should expect this policy to be implemented in a way which severely inconveniences (or worse) a lot of people who are not in any sense illegal or irregular migrants - in some cases, people who are not migrants at all. Which, lo, is exactly what has happened.

A second problem stems from the fact that this is such a radical change in the approach to implementing migration policy. Because of the old check-them-at-the-borders approach, the UK has a large number of migrants who are legal, but undocumented. Under the old approach, the very fact that you were in the UK was presumptive evidence of your right to be there; if you weren’t entitled, you wouldn’t have been admitted. So people mostly didn’t need to produce documentation to demonstrate their status and documentation wasn’t routinely generated or, if generated, wasn’t retained in the long term. And if you now switch to a policy of requiring regular demonstration of status, you have to address the fact that your old policy will created a large number of legitimate residents who can’t do that.

The only way to address this, I think, is with a “grandfather” clause; if you can show that you were in the UK for, say, the three years before the policy changed (2011-2014) then you are taken to be legitimate without further evidence. Sure, some illegal immigrants will benefit from this, but the overwhelming bulk of people who benefit from this will be entirely legitimate, and granting an incidental amnesty to a small cohort of illegal immigrants is a price you have to pay to avoid punishing a large number of people for the fact that you have decided to change your policy towards them.

I don’t think, as I say, that this is a matter of legitimate expectations; this is simply a matter of not trampling on established legal rights.

I await with interest the first cases taken against the Home Office by people who have been deported from the UK, despite being British citizens, or non-citizens with a right to remain. My guess, though, is that the cases will never come to trial; they will be settled at an early stage with large compensation payments.

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why would you imagine that because somebody is an old Etonian, or went to a grammar school, they cannot be stupid?

I didn't say that. As it happens, I don't think any of them are stupid. Stupid or not, having a privileged background can lead to elitism, elitism can lead to arrogance and arrogance blinds.

LeinsterDub

Peregrinus wrote: »

There are several options for having satellites launched commercially (including the ESA itself). You don't need an independent launch capacity in order to put up a satellite array.

The point was they'd either be relying on the EU/ESA or selection of less friendly options.

Unpossible

Enzokk wrote: »

That may be the plan now, but what was the plan before they decided to back leaving the EU? Did they not know how important the trade between Ireland and NI is for both countries? If they didn't, why not? If they did, why did they decide to vote for something that would put this at risk?

Look, I can understand some of their stance now. They are backed into a corner so tight they will probably be spat out on the other side having lost everything they held dear. They might lose their link to the UK. They may have Jeremy Corbyn in charge who could be more sympathetic to SF and a united Ireland. But anyone with two brain cells could have worked out not rocking the boat would mean the status quo remains. Is there a problem with that for them? I mean its not like Ireland will join the UK, ever, so the best they can hope for is to remain as part of the UK.

Politicians should have people below them at least to advise them, but it seems like common sense have left everyone at the moment in any political position in the UK. It's baffling to witness.

Just wondering as well, what would the votes have been had the DUP decided to back remain in NI? It would not have stopped Brexit, but what percentage would have voted Remain if all parties went for the sensible option? Also, even if they did back Remain, after the election Theresa May would have still needed to approach them for a deal to govern, but they could have actually made a difference for their own people instead of spouting threats about wanting something that cannot be given to them.

As someone else said, they probably didn't expect to win. They were just going to go against Sinn Fein and the UUP for a moral victory, and probably make some money or gain influence with groups that were pro-BREXIT.

Maybe some of them truely want a hard exit, it's been mentioned on here that their main hubs of support are not in border areas and don't see how it will affect them.

J Mysterio

Unpossible wrote: »

As someone else said, they probably didn't expect to win. They were just going to go against Sinn Fein and the UUP for a moral victory, and probably make some money or gain influence with groups that were pro-BREXIT.

Maybe some of them truely want a hard exit, it's been mentioned on here that their main hubs of support are not in border areas and don't see how it will affect them.

NI survives on huge subsidies paid to them by the EU. The NI economy is entirely dysfucntional and has a massively bloated public service. Aside from all the obvious trading issues, workers rights, movement etc. quite how any semi informed politican could possibly see leaving the EU to be in NI's interest is hard to fathom.

It's just the DUP and their essentially childish attachment to 'the mainland'. They really need go grow up and realise that they are a liability to Britain in every sense - political, economic, social - and that remaining in the EU in a bespoke arrangement kindly put in place for them, is the only logical choice.

Enzokk

J Mysterio wrote: »

NI survives on huge subsidies paid to them by the EU. The NI economy is entirely dysfucntional and has a massively bloated public service. Aside from all the obvious trading issues, workers rights, movement etc. quite how any semi informed politican could possibly see leaving the EU to be in NI's interest is hard to fathom.

It's just the DUP and their essentially childish attachment to 'the mainland'. They really need go grow up and realise that they are a liability to Britain in every sense - political, economic, social - and that remaining in the EU in a bespoke arrangement kindly put in place for them, is the only logical choice.

But even their quest to be attached to the mainland should have told them that all parties other than UKIP supported remaining in the EU. It defies belief how they thought supporting Brexit is in any way in their or NI's interest.

On the Windrush scandal, you cannot take anything this government say seriously. Yesterday Amber Rudd said she wasn't aware of targets for removals even when she was told the Commons Committee had just heard evidence of the targets that were set for regions. This morning she has come out to say, 'Amber Rudd says there were "local targets for internal performance management"'. So once again there is an attempt to shift the blame. It wasn't her fault at all, it all the fault of other departments. She wasn't told enough early enough to make a difference. Commonwealth nations wanted a meeting with the PM to discuss this but was denied due to it not being a problem only a few days ago. By now we have had 7 apologies so far from the PM and the Home Secretary for something that the PM didn't even want to discuss with the nations which this affected.

https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/989437982242426880

This is not entirely Amber Rudd's fault, it is mostly the fault of the PM who built and enhanced what Labour started. Labour was under the impression that they needed to be hard on immigration and they started the "hostile environment". Theresa May just focused this and pushed it to the point we have now.

The question is will someone, anyone, resign due to this? We have British Citizens being hounded for not having a document. No one is taking or even attempting to take responsibility. You have people believing they are the right person to "make this right" when they were asleep at the wheel. It's a disgrace and it is worrying as we are talking about the PM and one of her most senior ministers, who is supposed to negotiate a good Brexit deal and we have to hope we don't suffer. Robbie Fowler help us.

An Ciarraioch

It may only be symbolic, but when is the House of Commons voting on the customs amendment today? Will be interesting to see how many Tories move through the Yes lobbies.

J Mysterio

6 defeats in a week in the House of Lords for ol' May.

Lord Lisvane: “Whichever side of the Brexit argument they stand, people might reasonably believe that 'taking back control' would be under the sovereignty of parliament rather than ceding swathes of power to the Executive."

Just got me thinking of Naomi Kleins 'Shock Doctrine', an excellent book. She basically says that at times of flux, or disaster. Governments and Corporations etc. take the opportunity to grant themselves new powers/ seize land/ sign deals etc. while the population are so wrongfooted, they dont react. Thankfully some of these guys in the Lords are scrutinising and rejecting May's ridiculous proposals.

flatty

Bizarrely, I dont think they can actually do anything about it though. May can just ram it through regardless.

An Ciarraioch

Kate Hoey might as well join the DUP - apparently, the customs union debate is a Sinn Féin conspiracy!

farmchoice

i have watched the last hour of the debate in the commons, it has being overwhelming pro remain in the customs union and by and the large in the single market, with the honorable exception of ''crazy kate hoey''. mind you the house is only about a fifth full.

trellheim

The dialogue coming from David Davis would indicate that (in their mind anyway) that the Tories are getting their way

1) Agreed early on "Ireland needs to be sorted first" with Barnier etc.
2) Now, in last 6 months, with Trade on the agenda, "we can't do Ireland till Trade is sorted". - which is what they wanted all along.

This is utter hogwash. Reacted by honking loudly when Guy Verhofstadt called him on it this week.

Essentially the Foreign Office/DExEu view is that by delaying and delaying till October they will get all they want - Trade agreement without CU or SM, implying a hard border for us.

Zubeneschamali

trellheim wrote: »

Essentially the Foreign Office/DExEu view is that by delaying and delaying till October they will get all they want - Trade agreement without CU or SM, implying a hard border for us.

No, that is the story they are telling the backbenchers.

In fact they will delay and delay until October and then fold and accept what is on offer from the EU when it is too late for the Brexiteers to stop them.

Danzy

I think they'll go late and agree custom union.

The majority of Tory MPs are Remain and the big money behind the party is nearly all Remain.

Leave were strongest among the Working class. May will let the cards fall where they will with a warning that collapsing the Govt will handbit to Labour.