Which wouldn't be allowed in the EU - ergo a Brexit benefit (ducks and runs)
I suppose it is a tough old station for Brexit suporters posting here.
Afair, UK govt. only had to do that because...the UK were leaving the EU Single Market/Customs Union since "Brexit Means Brexit" and they needed to re-assure Nissan over it! So that particular instance of govt. support was to try and solve a new problem they had made (with Brexit).
Ability to do that in future could be spun as a Brexit benefit apart from fact that I think UK govt. were always one of the big "The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is God & Solves Everything" contingent when in the EU and likely (haven't checked) were one of the countries pushing for rules curtailing State Aid at EU level due to this ideology. I think UK past govt's went much further than France/Germany in trying to privatise what are usually govt. provided services, and also allowed the break up and international sell off of UK companies in strategic sectors (energy, transport, communications, military etc.).
Yeah, wouldn't you love to know what was in that deal? Must have been really sweet ...
The weird thing is that somehow, these undereducated slum dwellers in France are still more productive than UK workers. It's almost as if your claim is complete rubbish.
So I've not been paying a lot of attention to the Borders bill, but does anyone have any idea what the end goal here is ?
Are they attempting to design in some justification for border checks in NI without strictly breaching the GFA? Or is it merely the usual "Oh, we never really considered Northern Ireland" carelessness of Westminster.
What they're creating is a functionally unenforceable grey area in Ireland. Unless they have PSNI/immigration officers manning 24-hour checkpoints at the border, no foreign resident in Ireland is going to be filling out an online form to go to Belfast for the weekend.
I had some european friends who were under the impression they shouldn't travel to the north from October I think it was. Granted we pointed out it would cause absolute havoc if they actually checked anything and just took it as technical legal point that would never amount to any enforcing.
It's sad that in the future, my non-EU girlfriend wouldn't be able to visit certain relatives and we'd have to take different routes to avoid some roads crossing into NI.
There have always been cases of differences between the visa requirements between the UK and Ireland - however they are few and far between.
There was a time when China passport holders could not get a visa for the UK but Ireland allowed them - I know this because I knew someone affected.
I am not aware of any other cases, but I am sure they exist. The UK show their annoyance with regimes by not giving visas, and Ireland does not always follow. Now, anyone could travel over to the UK by simply getting a ticket, and many affected may not have been aware of the risks as there were no checks, but risk there was.
This latest 'taking back control' is clearly an affront to both the NI Protocol and the GFA.
I know there have always been rules. But I'm talking about slivers of the North where it wouldn't have been an issue before Brexit.
I mean I won't discourage anyone from following the rules but they are never ever going to have the ability to check it. Any difference in rules between the south/north on visas is academic when it comes to short hops across the border.
It's nonsense really. To find out who the EU and non-EU people are they would have to check all passports including the Irish from both sides of the border. Every car and train and that's not gonna happen
The 'enforcement' or lack of it is only part of the problem really. It's unlikely that anyone will be stopped for the reasons you suggest.
What about issues which go beyond merely getting the past the border. For example I'm wondering would it nullify your health insurance if you had an accident/incident in a country which, strictly speaking, you hadn't entered legally? Has it become the fault of your own lawbreaking recklessness?
It wouldn't just be Irish / EU / non-EU people showing ID. And with the UK talking about taking away passports or driving licenses from people who do drugs, you could find yourself being a British citizen with no means to easily prove you're legally in your own country.
There will always be edge cases unfortunately. Eg daytripper stopped on a bus. Not to mention most buses going to Donegal go through NI.
I'd imagine that an unintended consequence would be less non-eu tourists visiting NI especially from US. I'd imagine most would fly in to Dublin. Any bureaucracy will lead to hesitancy, just easier to head south/west instead of North.
The UK replaced the Erasmus scheme with the Turing student exchange programme.
This has now been outsourced to Capita who will be getting £6.9m to run scheme. My expectation based on Capita's previous attempts is that they will break it badly ruining chances for UK students to study abroad.
Some people making the interesting point today that Johnson being exposed as an obvious pathological liar to the British public is not necessarily good news for Brexit. If he's lying through his teeth now, did he lie to them about Brexit in 2016? We here on the forum already know the answer, but the penny may be starting to drop cross channel.
There can't be many people in the UK who aren't already aware that Johnson is a liar. He was famously a liar long before he ever became party leader and PM. Arguably, he was chosen as party leader precisely because he is a liar — he has the knack of telling people the lies they want to hear and being forgiven for it. The Tory party saw this as something that might be useful in squaring the Brexit circle (which it was).
But his knack may have failed him on this occasion.
When I take a day trip to NI with my Irish son and German wife I will just tell the wife to say she's Irish if anyone asks. We're not filling out any forms.
Wouldn't it still require agreement with foreign institutions to be involved with this reciprocal setup? Much like those temporary visas offered to drivers to work Xmas, one wonders what appeal the UK might have to continental students at this point (unless I'm misunderstanding the scheme). I can't imagine (say) German reporting of brexit has been so flattering the average college student might want to visit a country experiencing a self-caused brain drain
UK economy flatlined in October, manufacturing badly affected by supply chain issues. More bad news for Johnson...
Yes, obviously the Turing Scheme will require buy-in from educational institutions in other countries.
But this need not be reciprocal. the UK government will provide up to £100m/year to enable students at UK universities to study or do work placements abroad, at or under the supervision of foreign universities. The carrot for the foreign universities is the £100m; they get paid to take the UK students. If the interaction with UK universities fosters relationships that facilitate traffic the other way, and if the foreign students are keen to study in the UK, and if somebody is willing to pay the UK universities for that, great, but that's not essential to the scheme.
Erasmus worked differently; the host universities received little or no money for hosting students. The carrot for them in return for hosting students was that their students could in turn go to other universities - not necessarily the same universities as were sending students - for relatively little money.
The design of the Erasmus scheme represented a net drain on UK educational finances. The UK has many excellent universities, and lots of students from other countries were interested in studying in the UK partly because of the quality of the universities and partly because they already spoke English, and so living and studying in the UK was easier for them than in some third country whose language they did not speak. But UK university students were (relatively speaking) a parochial and monoglot lot; they were less interested in studying in abroad and they had a marked preference for English-speaking host countries, of whom not many participate in Erasmus. The upshot was the about twice as many foreign students came to the UK under Erasmus (largely at the UK's expense) as UK students went abroad (largely at the expense of other governments). Turing is designed not to replicate this feature of Erasmus; UK will pay for UK students who go abroad, rather than for foreign students who come to the UK.
The UK universities are not keen, obviously, because (a) there's no money in this for them and (b) they miss out on the enriching experience of having foreign students in the mix.
The UK's Parliamentary Science and Technology Commitee discuss the loss of the Galileo project to UK scientists (the UK pre-Brexit opposed opening Galileo up to third countries and now themselves is one so...).
Does that these questons are being asked possibly shows that they were not considered by the SCT before Brexit (like so many other things)?
I also noticed that the Express has an article titled "UK trade has shrunk since Brexit while EU thrives - data". The article starts as follows...
BREXIT, according to its backers, was meant to create endless opportunities. So far, however, the UK has failed to make the vote profitable, with the prospect of "global Britain" quickly fading according to recent data.
Both [the UK and the EU] suffered losses when the pandemic hit in 2020, but only one has recovered.
The UK has not seen its trade bounce back since the official exit date of January 2021.
Trade agreements negotiated by Ms Truss have done little to boost the UK's imports and exports, with experts criticising the amount they will prospectively bring in.
She has so far secured arrangements with Australia, New Zealand and Japan.
Altogether, they will barely contribute to UK GDP, between zero and 0.16 percent respectively.
For a newspaper that is so anti-EU and pro-Brexit, this indicates a massive shift. The Express famous for its vitriolic headlines regarding Merkel, the EU and the Irish must really be hurting to have published the above.
(I won't link to the article itself but it is currently the lead article on their homepage)
That's quite an astonishing shift in language from a paper who, as you say, would frame everything with an aggressive tone in favour of Brexit. Long way to go before it starts openly criticising brexit as a concept, but you never know I suppose....
I am sure they did consider it, just as they considered trade. However, the overriding view, and that was touched on with the last question, was that the EU needed the UK more than it needed them and the EU would simply fall apart with the UK and as such the EU would do whatever it could to keep the UK close.
When the UK talked about a close relationship, they never meant from their side, they meant from the EU. My feeling throughout, including Camerons attempt to get special treatment, is that the UK always felt that at some stage the EU would give in and accept that primacy of the UK. The German car manufacturers for example.
So there was never a need to work out a what if scenario such as Galileo, as it was always assumed that it would never come to pass.
If now, the UK haven't really put forward a plan of how to deal with post Brexit trade. There are no long terms plans in place, no ideas on how to attract the best talent from abroad, how they will sell themselves to internaational investors etc. Just a belief that everything will work out, because Britain!
I got the impression from the last question that the guy was expecting the professor to say yeah UK is the best, they will suffer. His reply was great though. Yes there is an impact on the EU, they have the skills but the change will increase the cost and time. Kind of sums up Brexit in a nutshell.
I sometimes wonder if the Express throws in one or two sensible articles a couple of times a year so that they can point to them if anyone raises their otherwise utterly one sided coverage.
I think people tend to assume that the press and the Tory party are one and the same. While they're both almost identically aligned, they're not completely identical. The press ultimately exists to sell itself. If stories about the UK lagging behind the EU multiply, people will just switch paper if the Express isn't covering it.
It's still a serious shift though.
It's hard to know what newspaper a typical Express reader would change to!
It is a remarkable article, however I would read it more as a message to the government for more up socks pulling to go out and sell "Global Britain".
I doubt the Express has changed its mind on the concept of Brexit.
In the words of the now Gove classic:
"I think the people of this country have had enough of experts"