Concerns over migration is not xenophobic. It can be, but its not automatically.
Actually Ireland was brought up but it didn't get much traction as its not a real problem. Shame it has got traction since when we have such a pathetically weak PM she's allowed it to become an issue.None of things that have caused problems during the negotiations were even mentioned during the campaign; noone brought up the Irish border or the divorce bill or any of that stuff, and it was the Remain side that should have been hammering that stuff, instead of vague predictions of non-specific calamities. But I guess they couldn't be bothered to look into it?
The divorce bill is a non-issue as its simply a settling up of payments we would have had to pay anyway had we remained. Though of course in a no-deal scenario there is no bill.
But yeah the Remain campaign was appallingly mishandled and deserved to lose. I mean seriously on the day the Remain campaign chief was appointed he made the warning that if we exited then wages would rise which just goes to show how out of touch and myopic some people can be.
And that's quite mild. The UK losing its mind over the prospect of non-Anglo* immigrants is practically an annual tradition.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Woof woof woof woof!!
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Congratulations America
In case of a no deal Brexit, The Netherlands no longer will recognize the validity of UK diplomas and certificates. Including driver’s licences as of March 30th, 2019. Otherwise government is asking parliament for powers to temporarily provide for regulations by decrete. A general leading principle will be that the effects on individuals with existing rights resident in The Netherlands will be mitigated. There is no such principle put in place for businesses.
Congratulations America
Interesting to see a Dutch expert saying exactly what I've been saying all along: https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/bo...-mps-1-8706484
The technology is there, companies need to declare what they are doing and the whole system can be electronic and up and running before the end of transition.
But 'who needs experts' hey?
And the credentials of said expert are exactly what?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Well he is "former chairman of the Dutch Association of Customs Brokers" and responsible for Rotterdam the busiest port in Europe.
If it is good enough for Rotterdam, its good enough for Ireland.His proposals include comprehensive use of electronic declarations, use of customs brokers and HMRC carrying out customs inspection at company premises. This was not technology based but uses existing EU approved practices, he said.
“In Rotterdam, being the biggest port in Europe ... there is a vast amount of containers coming in every day and we would handle that from somewhere inland. Everything is virtual nowadays. I don’t talk to customs officers anymore, I talk to a customs computer. Everything is computerised. I never see goods, goods are defined on paper.”
Read more at: https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/bo...-mps-1-8706484
That's not actually the case. Rotterdam is larger and busier, yes, but the problems with the Irish border arise from the nature of the border, the nature of cross border trade on the island and the unique legal aspects. This man may perhaps be regarded as an expert on customs and on trade in Rotterdam, but he should not be regarded as an expert on cross-border trade between NI and Ireland. He is, also, only one expert, whose opinion differs from that of others with similar expertise or more relevant expertise.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Can somebody help me understand something please: how does more sophisticated customs checks keep the GFA in tact, which, as I understood things, is based on the assumption that both sides of the border operate under identical trading and regulatory conditions.
Is there idea to diverge regulatory and trading conditions but enforce more checks? That doesn't seem in keeping with the principles of the GFA.
<---- ignorant on this
Because that's now what the GFA is about. There already are checks for a plethora of divergences as we already don't operate under identical trading conditions. Taxes etc are quite different on the two sides of the border and these are all dealt with away from the border. So long as the checks are done away from the border the GFA is intact.
You say that's not what it's about, but I thought a major principle of the GFA was to ensure there would be no need for checks at the border, such that the island, in some respects, was treated as a single state.
That's nice for him. I was actually looking for something more in the area of "Software Engineer" or "Software Architect".
Because, you see, knowing about the regulations doesn't mean that he has much of a clue on the actual systems behind them. It's the same reason why you don't let lawyers develop legal software.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Indeed which is why my preferred solution all along is a trade deal that renders it moot, but you guys aren't interested in talking trade yet. We could have spent 18 months already negotiating the future agreement but you don't want to so oh well. Clearly avoiding a hard border isn't really all that big a deal to you and you're prepared to stir up violence for the sake of trying to get one over us in a negotiation.
And you have been told for over two years that to get such a deal pretty much all of your red lines have to go. Because unlike you we don't believe people who promise us unicorns.
Congratulations America
Give me one good reason why we would bother.
Congratulations America
The article 50 process is clear about this, and you knew before the referendum how the negotiations would be conducted. A future trade relationship will take far more time than the a50 process provides for, which is also something you knew before the referendum. A50 was not custom-made for delusional and confused Brexiters who, like you, want to screw over NI; it was designed as a general framework for a generic country choosing to leave the EU. To negotiate the future relationship for an indefinite length of time, while the UK remains a full member—without any clarity on whether or not the UK will honor its obligations, negotiate in good faith, or, indeed, leave at all—would be ludicrous. I understand that's what you unicorn-botherers would prefer, but it's not what reality and the law can offer you.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."