- Location
- Limousin
Quite simple, the UK has no ID system and doesn't deport anyone if you are caught. So if you can get there, you'r in.
I thought the eu were going to come running to you guys?
- Thread starter czechmate
- Start date
Quite simple, the UK has no ID system and doesn't deport anyone if you are caught. So if you can get there, you'r in.
wanton dwarf
Member
“Brexit committee says solution doubtful”.
Irish border: Brexit committee says solution doubtful
The UK government's plan for the border is "untested and speculative", the Brexit committee says.www.bbc.co.uk
Run by Hilary Benn ???
You seriously take Hilary Benn as impartial ? Benn is a raving Remainer ..
Greg Hands report: https://brexitcentral.com/the-alter...ce-the-irish-backstop-in-any-brexit-scenario/
wanton dwarf
Member
And you wonder why I called you a liar.
There is one thing for certain .. those people in the Tory party are better than you.
- Location
- Scottish Highlands
Run by Hilary Benn ???
You seriously take Hilary Benn as impartial ? Benn is a raving Remainer ..
Greg Hands report: https://brexitcentral.com/the-alter...ce-the-irish-backstop-in-any-brexit-scenario/
Funny, that never came up when I did as you said and “googled it”. The BBC was the first result. Maybe if you’d given us the link before it would have saved a lot of silliness.
Brexitcentral - sounds a bit niche and partisan, far more so than the BBC (even considering). Is it a credible site or just a club run by a bunch of loonies like yourself?
wanton dwarf
Member
Did the BBC give information to Barnier on alternatives to the "Backstop" during Theresa May's term ?
Or did Greg Hands MP give information to Barnier ?
You're not biased are you ?
Thing is you'll moan and bitch on here .. but the reason is not because you want to know .. it's because you want to moan.
As regards Google .. you'll find several members of Greg Hand's committe have been on even the BBC reporting alternatives, which included Nikki Morgan last year I think .. but the BBC have failed to document the report although they've stated "some" of the people invovled .. I'll leave it to your imagination why.
But you'd know this IF you were following events rather than bitching.
wanton dwarf
Member
Brexit: How could 'alternative arrangements' for the Irish border work?
The PM says alternative arrangements are the key to unlocking a Brexit deal, but what are they?
www.bbc.co.uk
Greg Hands: One might think that no-one in Brussels has read our Alternative Arrangements report | Conservative Home
Many of our proposals can be introduced quickly. Some might take 12 – 15 months. We don’t believe anything will take longer than two to three years.
www.conservativehome.com
Explainer: What is the Brexit backstop alternative paper British PM praised?
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson referred for the second successive day on Thursday to "an excellent paper" endorsed by pro-Brexit members of parliament proposing alternatives to replace the so-called Irish backstop.
www.reuters.com
Can an alternative to the Brexit backstop be found in 30 days? | ITV News
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she wanted the UK to come forward with its proposals for the Irish border | ITV National News
www.itv.com
Brexit is not easy, but our straightforward plans can keep the Irish border free-flowing
Amidst all the talk of Boris or Jeremy, No Deal Brexit planning, and the 31st October departure date, we all risk losing sight of what our main mission should be:
www.telegraph.co.uk
Boris Johnson says he is looking at 'abundant solutions' to Irish Brexit backstop problem
Boris Johnson wants to replace the Northern Ireland backstop with new alternative arrangements including mobile examinations on livestock and crops, trusted trader schemes and electronic customs clearance checks.
www.telegraph.co.uk
Alternative arrangements on the Irish border are practical and deliverable
Finding a solution to the Irish border issue, which protects and upholds the Good Friday agreement, avoids a “hard border” on the island of Ireland, respects legitimate Irish and EU concerns, but which avoids the UK ever entering the so-called backstop, is critical to clearing the Brexit impasse. T
www.thetimes.co.uk
- Location
- Scottish Highlands
Now if only you’d put on those links before. Sadly, most are behind paywalls, but they all seem from the previews to be similar - is that fair?Brexit: How could 'alternative arrangements' for the Irish border work?
The PM says alternative arrangements are the key to unlocking a Brexit deal, but what are they?www.bbc.co.uk
Greg Hands: One might think that no-one in Brussels has read our Alternative Arrangements report | Conservative Home
Many of our proposals can be introduced quickly. Some might take 12 – 15 months. We don’t believe anything will take longer than two to three years.
Explainer: What is the Brexit backstop alternative paper British PM praised?
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson referred for the second successive day on Thursday to "an excellent paper" endorsed by pro-Brexit members of parliament proposing alternatives to replace the so-called Irish backstop.
Can an alternative to the Brexit backstop be found in 30 days? | ITV News
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she wanted the UK to come forward with its proposals for the Irish border | ITV National News
Brexit is not easy, but our straightforward plans can keep the Irish border free-flowing
Amidst all the talk of Boris or Jeremy, No Deal Brexit planning, and the 31st October departure date, we all risk losing sight of what our main mission should be:
Boris Johnson says he is looking at 'abundant solutions' to Irish Brexit backstop problem
Boris Johnson wants to replace the Northern Ireland backstop with new alternative arrangements including mobile examinations on livestock and crops, trusted trader schemes and electronic customs clearance checks.
Alternative arrangements on the Irish border are practical and deliverable
Finding a solution to the Irish border issue, which protects and upholds the Good Friday agreement, avoids a “hard border” on the island of Ireland, respects legitimate Irish and EU concerns, but which avoids the UK ever entering the so-called backstop, is critical to clearing the Brexit impasse. T
Greg Hands, appears to be an MP who is doing what you and yours complain about. He’s going against the wishes of his constituents who are very strongly remain, and has been censured for such. He’s also changed his mind in the past and is supposed to have voted for remain at the referendum, yet we as an electorate have been denied that right too.
I’ll read up on his proposals, but not tonight, and hopefully will have confidence as a result. I’m jaded to the claims and lies from Brexit campaigners though, so forgive my scepticism.
wanton dwarf
Member
You've had 3 days to be bothered to find the relevant news .. news which has been reported daily on the BBC .. I saw an interview today whilst I was catching my tea mid harvest with the old folks.
Yet you expect to be taken seriously .. I couldn't care less what you think.
- Location
- Scottish Highlands
You put the links up 28 minutes ago. Forgive me but I’m not wasting time with your riddles.
wanton dwarf
Member
- Location
- Bay of Plenty NZ
The links all appear to be to the same article and the report from the Alternate Arrangements Commission, the summary itself is over 90 pages long and a little tedious, it may or may not work, I would prefer to see something more concrete to have faith in it.
School holidays will be over soon so the dwarf along with Doc, Bashful, Grumpy, Sneezy, Happy and Sleepy, should be back in class hopefully they will then all be doing homework so a few less riddles to solve.
Hindsight
Member
- Location
- Lincolnshire
oon we must choose between the US and Europe
matthew parris
Brexit presents Britain with a fork in the road but if we choose to align ourselves with America we must go all the way
Share
Save
President Macron (reports The Times) will use the three-day G7 summit starting today in France “to set out sharp dividing lines with President Trump”. Our own prime minister will be there. Whose side will Britain be on?
Agonising choices face the United Kingdom this year, some of them immediate and obvious. But the biggest is less apparent yet will shape our nation’s future in a way that no wrangles about EU deals ever can. Does Britain’s destiny lie with the States? As two global blocs, Europe and America, diverge we shall be making that decision whether we know it or not.
You may suppose that along with many Remain-leaning commentators I’m about to argue for the European option. I’m not. There are strong arguments both ways and in this column I wish only to set them out. But I must be clear about how much the American option would require of us. I’m far from arguing, however, that this is a road we could not take. We could and we may.
First, though, let me remind you why in the end it really must be one or the other. After the disintegration of those old monoliths, “the West” and the “communist bloc”, our world is now resolving itself into new blocs. These take the form of trading co-operatives but with common political and cultural values, too. One is a vast country on its own: China. The others are Europe and the US and its satellites.
We, a medium-sized merchant and manufacturing nation, lacking rich mineral or agricultural resources, militarily now rather weak and horribly dependent on visible and invisible trade, must find our orbit around either the New World or the Old: our own European continent. If you honestly think we can be a big, free-wheeling, free-standing, buccaneering power associating promiscuously with all sides and getting the best of all worlds, then name me another.
We must choose. Look at recent weeks alone. Do we defy the EU and join an all-out US blockade of Iran? Should we (against American wishes) have released that Iranian oil-tanker held in Gibraltar? Caught between China and the US, what should we do about Huawei? If Washington asks us to pipe down on Hong Kong while it tussles with Beijing over trade, do we comply? Are we with the White House or with Brussels on the whole idea of multilateral organisations? In the end we’re going to have to throw in our lot with one bloc or the other, lest we alienate both. Europe and the US are no longer automatically on the same side, and perhaps never will be again.
I’ve often on these pages rehearsed the arguments for sticking with Europe. But there follow now some questions about the EU which argue the other way.
Is a bloc with no unified military power, and to which America’s security commitment may waver, a safe enough shelter in what may prove a savage century? And, while our economy has never been “shackled” to the EU’s, a single market does exert a gentle magnetic force on trade. Are our exporters looking the wrong way?
But the biggest question is the existential one: how confident can any of the EU member states be that the whole project will not run into the sand? Huge forces of history, of nationalism, of migration and populism will always strain the bonds that keep the EU together. Are those bonds strong enough to guarantee the union’s future integrity? I do not know the answer.
America probably faces historic, gradual and relative long-term decline, but for as far as we can see looks massively solid as an economic and military power. We share a language: an inestimable facilitator. It is possible for post-imperial Britons to take pride in — to feel associated with — the success of those we may see as kith and kin and somehow part of our own cultural history and legacy. We like to call them cousins: it bigs us up, even if (as I believe) Americans are, in their capable, forceful, overconfident, swaggering and sometimes blundering collective soul, Germans who speak English.
At 24 I accepted a graduate fellowship at Yale University. For two years I immersed myself almost exclusively in American friendship and American life. I liked it, musing that if Europe were obliterated in a Soviet nuclear attack then, while mourning my country’s fate, I would have little difficulty in starting my life again as an American. Plenty had. Plenty were. Plenty still do today. Few find it a problem.
So if we cannot beat them, could we join them? And there’s the catch. We can join them only as a partially owned subsidiary. It is simply futile to dream of a partnership, even a junior partnership, as between two sovereign nations. The relationship is grotesquely asymmetrical. We register in the American imagination only as harmless and relatively benign curiosities. “America first” is not just a Trumpism, it is America. Who forgets that in both world wars America only pitched in after it had been provoked?
This is not a counsel of despair but a pointer to the only kind of association we can have with the US. America must see the UK as a satellite state, so that our interests become their interests and are defended for proprietorial rather than fraternal reasons.
Looking across the Channel toward the coast of France, we British see the Channel Islands as small, charming, friendly, smart, successful and English-speaking: we’re heavily invested there and a major shareholder. They enjoy a measure of autonomy and their own quaint democratic institutions, and an attack on them would be an attack on us; but heaven help them if they started throwing their weight around. For a relationship with America to work, Washington has to look across the Atlantic and see our islands, adjacent to the European continental coast, in a similar way.
Could we get used to it? There are those on the Conservative right who would secretly delight in such a reunion. We should hardly have “taken back control” and the word “vassalage” would be redeployed, but at least our new master would speak English. And as American investment came pouring in, trade barriers came tumbling down, and we began to feel part of the American world project, maybe it would catch on?
Or maybe not — but of this be sure: it’s not a matter of whether we bend the knee, but to whom. Other options are not available. The 20th century’s reprimand to British self-importance was Suez. A new century may be about to repeat the lesson.
matthew parris
Brexit presents Britain with a fork in the road but if we choose to align ourselves with America we must go all the way
Share
Save
President Macron (reports The Times) will use the three-day G7 summit starting today in France “to set out sharp dividing lines with President Trump”. Our own prime minister will be there. Whose side will Britain be on?
Agonising choices face the United Kingdom this year, some of them immediate and obvious. But the biggest is less apparent yet will shape our nation’s future in a way that no wrangles about EU deals ever can. Does Britain’s destiny lie with the States? As two global blocs, Europe and America, diverge we shall be making that decision whether we know it or not.
You may suppose that along with many Remain-leaning commentators I’m about to argue for the European option. I’m not. There are strong arguments both ways and in this column I wish only to set them out. But I must be clear about how much the American option would require of us. I’m far from arguing, however, that this is a road we could not take. We could and we may.
First, though, let me remind you why in the end it really must be one or the other. After the disintegration of those old monoliths, “the West” and the “communist bloc”, our world is now resolving itself into new blocs. These take the form of trading co-operatives but with common political and cultural values, too. One is a vast country on its own: China. The others are Europe and the US and its satellites.
We, a medium-sized merchant and manufacturing nation, lacking rich mineral or agricultural resources, militarily now rather weak and horribly dependent on visible and invisible trade, must find our orbit around either the New World or the Old: our own European continent. If you honestly think we can be a big, free-wheeling, free-standing, buccaneering power associating promiscuously with all sides and getting the best of all worlds, then name me another.
We must choose. Look at recent weeks alone. Do we defy the EU and join an all-out US blockade of Iran? Should we (against American wishes) have released that Iranian oil-tanker held in Gibraltar? Caught between China and the US, what should we do about Huawei? If Washington asks us to pipe down on Hong Kong while it tussles with Beijing over trade, do we comply? Are we with the White House or with Brussels on the whole idea of multilateral organisations? In the end we’re going to have to throw in our lot with one bloc or the other, lest we alienate both. Europe and the US are no longer automatically on the same side, and perhaps never will be again.
I’ve often on these pages rehearsed the arguments for sticking with Europe. But there follow now some questions about the EU which argue the other way.
Is a bloc with no unified military power, and to which America’s security commitment may waver, a safe enough shelter in what may prove a savage century? And, while our economy has never been “shackled” to the EU’s, a single market does exert a gentle magnetic force on trade. Are our exporters looking the wrong way?
But the biggest question is the existential one: how confident can any of the EU member states be that the whole project will not run into the sand? Huge forces of history, of nationalism, of migration and populism will always strain the bonds that keep the EU together. Are those bonds strong enough to guarantee the union’s future integrity? I do not know the answer.
America probably faces historic, gradual and relative long-term decline, but for as far as we can see looks massively solid as an economic and military power. We share a language: an inestimable facilitator. It is possible for post-imperial Britons to take pride in — to feel associated with — the success of those we may see as kith and kin and somehow part of our own cultural history and legacy. We like to call them cousins: it bigs us up, even if (as I believe) Americans are, in their capable, forceful, overconfident, swaggering and sometimes blundering collective soul, Germans who speak English.
At 24 I accepted a graduate fellowship at Yale University. For two years I immersed myself almost exclusively in American friendship and American life. I liked it, musing that if Europe were obliterated in a Soviet nuclear attack then, while mourning my country’s fate, I would have little difficulty in starting my life again as an American. Plenty had. Plenty were. Plenty still do today. Few find it a problem.
So if we cannot beat them, could we join them? And there’s the catch. We can join them only as a partially owned subsidiary. It is simply futile to dream of a partnership, even a junior partnership, as between two sovereign nations. The relationship is grotesquely asymmetrical. We register in the American imagination only as harmless and relatively benign curiosities. “America first” is not just a Trumpism, it is America. Who forgets that in both world wars America only pitched in after it had been provoked?
This is not a counsel of despair but a pointer to the only kind of association we can have with the US. America must see the UK as a satellite state, so that our interests become their interests and are defended for proprietorial rather than fraternal reasons.
Looking across the Channel toward the coast of France, we British see the Channel Islands as small, charming, friendly, smart, successful and English-speaking: we’re heavily invested there and a major shareholder. They enjoy a measure of autonomy and their own quaint democratic institutions, and an attack on them would be an attack on us; but heaven help them if they started throwing their weight around. For a relationship with America to work, Washington has to look across the Atlantic and see our islands, adjacent to the European continental coast, in a similar way.
Could we get used to it? There are those on the Conservative right who would secretly delight in such a reunion. We should hardly have “taken back control” and the word “vassalage” would be redeployed, but at least our new master would speak English. And as American investment came pouring in, trade barriers came tumbling down, and we began to feel part of the American world project, maybe it would catch on?
Or maybe not — but of this be sure: it’s not a matter of whether we bend the knee, but to whom. Other options are not available. The 20th century’s reprimand to British self-importance was Suez. A new century may be about to repeat the lesson.
A very balanced article although it does reinforce my main reasons for voting leave. I would never consider that the EU would be a strong ally in times of threat nor do I have much respect for its long term future. Over recent years the French have alienated the Us and continue to do so. I do not recall any other European state making such an effort to do so.
Whatever we may think of the present regime I know where my allegiances lie and would rather chance my arm in that direction.
Whatever we may think of the present regime I know where my allegiances lie and would rather chance my arm in that direction.
Hindsight
Member
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Hi, yes, an interesting piece today from Parris. I thought the reference to Suez pertinent. And what he did not say was that both Great Britain and France were humbled in 1956 by the USA. And then the French were humbled shortly after in Vietnam at Dien Bien Phu with the USA taking up the cudgel as France withdrew from its colonies.
Regards.
Last edited:
Scribus
Member
- Location
- Central Atlantic
And nor should it. The state does not own the citizen. However, I'm entirely convinced that they are building one covertly.
Scribus
Member
- Location
- Central Atlantic
oon we must choose between the US and Europe
matthew parris
Brexit presents Britain with a fork in the road but if we choose to align ourselves with America we must go all the way
Share
Save
President Macron (reports The Times) will use the three-day G7 summit starting today in France “to set out sharp dividing lines with President Trump”. Our own prime minister will be there. Whose side will Britain be on?
Once again we see copyright issues here, which is I've only quoted the first paragraph.
- Location
- Limousin
If you don't want as system of identifying who is in your country, then don't complain about being overrun illegal immigrants, foreign criminals and terrorists,. You have allowed them access to a libertarian safe haven.
Scribus
Member
- Location
- Central Atlantic
When have you heard me complain? But I suppose if the libertarian safe haven is destroyed through the subjugation of the people by ever more intrusive surveillance and control then your problem is sorted.
- Location
- Limousin
France and the UK have generally supported each other for at least the last 150+ years. The US has been a lot more hard-nosed and in many cases hostile to supporting the UK. For example, the Republican party and many influential Americans were happy to throw the UK under the proverbial Nazi bus at the onset of WW2. It was only the determination of Roosevelt and his chief adviser Hopkins with a somewhat fake news campaign that got the US populous onside and saved our bacon.
- Location
- Limousin
Not particularly addressing it as you personally, but merely stating you can't have it both ways.