Brexit Thread IV - They're laughing with us, not at us

[innonimatu]

The funny bit of course is how the EU empowers Ireland vs Britain in all this. The rest of the members are expected to show solidarity with Eire, same as with any other member state. The UK having decided to leave waives that commitment to it. And it is testament to how, when matters of essential national interest to smaller member states are on line, they tend to be perfectly capable of leveraging this through the EU.

It is of course simplified by most of the UK govt's ideas about how they would like things to work tend to come back to a forlorn hope that the EU will somehow nerf itself on the UK's behalf, by compromising on the four freedoms that underpins the common market (or selling out the Irish). Which, from a continental perspective, makes no sense. It's the bit where the UK acts as if the EU owes the UK to make Brexit a success never mind how, and not something that the UK has to make work.

Eurospeak propaganda: "four freedoms", "solidarity"....

Solidarity with a heaven for tax evasion? Pass. They can go to hell together with the UK, Luxembourg, the Netherlands... and the four so-called "freedoms" of the EU. Those are the freedoms to disrupt local markets, to extract profits without paying taxes, to poach (and economically coerce the migration of) people from the poorer areas and concentrate them in the wealthier ones where they can conveniently supply relatively cheap labour.

From a "continental perspective" what makes sense for the majority of the population is to nerf the common market altogether.

 

[Kyriakos]

Indeed, i think it is somewhat way too naive to actually think this is about "solidarity" with Ireland. As with most of the eu countries, there is no solidarity, as should have become obvious since a while now.
Of course it is a nice line to have: "we insist so as to protect a member state; Ireland", but seriously, no one should fall for so crude and obvious a lie.

Btw, Juncker should go easy on the bottle, cause by now he is nearing Yeltsin level.

 

[Takhisis]

From a "continental perspective" what makes sense for the majority of the population is to nerf the common market altogether.

Do you think that the UK would do better by staying in the EU but with, as you put it, a ‘nerfed common market’?

 

[really]

The UK has not proposed border posts on the island.

The UK has proposed lots of things, including things that are contradictory and unworkable.

I am puzzled as to why you should consider an unenforced border improbable
bearing in mind that it (a) currently exists (b) is specified in the Good Friday
Agreement (c) is what the Irish and the UK government say they wish to continue.

It currently exists within the customs union and single market. You want to leave that.
The UK government has said they want to continue it. They haven't said how.

Some of the nonsense suggested by different UK officials so far has been to install cameras (no because of physical infrastructure, no because it wouldnt actually check what was in the truck), a buffer zone (aka two borders rather than one), mobile phone tracking, and now max fac or whatever it is being called (no because the EU doesn't want to extend the dispensation for NI and it is unworkable).

The EU has proposed a special status for NI and this was accepted by the UK as the backstop.

For people movement: Ireland doesn't really care - we have a common travel area with that is unlikely to be going anywhere. The UK might have a problem with that.

Britain has declared economic war. And it is losing the war badly.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Ending freedom of movement while not enforcing a border seems somewhat squaring the circle. Where will you catch border crossers and create end freedom of movement in actuality instead of merely in law.

This is a question that will need a rigorous answer.

The UK electorate voted to Leave the EU. The idea that the UK government has to answer every
question to the satisfaction of those determined not to be satisfied before doing so, is absurd.

And the fact that Theresa May has swallowed that absurdity demonstrates her unsuitability.

After Windrush there will be little tolerance for "accidentally" deporting EU citizens
who have been here for years but perhaps can't prove it sufficiently, despite their children
being natural citizens in the midst of primary school.

The Windrush deportation scandal was created by Remainers while the UK was in the EU.

Let us go through the immediate timeline:

(a) Theresa May (voted Remain) promulgated the term 'hostile environment" and it was when
she was Home Secrearty that those lorries with the billboards were sent around London.

(b) Nigel Farage (the arch Leaver) referred to such billboards as "creepy"

(c) The Home Office card files containing lists of accompanied Windrush children were
destroyed to comply wth idiotic EU directives and/or regulations about data protection

(d) Amber Rudd (Remainer) was Home Secretary when the Windrush deportations were implemented.

And let us consider some of the context.

Firstly the need to carry identity cards in the UK was abolished not long after WW2 ended;
with the peacetime UK reverting to its tradition that people were innocent until proved guilty
and did not need generally proof.of identity. It was for the UK state to establish whether people
were in the UK illegally; but since the UK state first considered joining and joined the
EEC/EC/EU laws were incrementally changed to put the burden of proof on individuals.

Secondly the requirement to accommodate unlimited EU migrants put pressure on living
space in the UK and was therefore an incentive for the UK state to facilitate the removal of those
deemed unproductive, whether by deportation, or by emigration, to make room for EU migrants.

Thirdly the EU is very much a white peoples club and thereby its UK proponents
(Theresa May and Amber Rudd) supported white, rather than non white, migrants.

Remember joining the EEC was about closing links with the commonwealth (mostly
non white people) and developing links with Europe (mostly white people).

It reeks of JRM smarm to suggest that, due to the actions of the UK creating a new external
EU border, the EU should just not enforce their side.

That is the EU's decision. We are not telling them what to do.

The UK has proposed lots of things, including things that are contradictory and unworkable.

It currently exists within the customs union and single market. You want to leave that.
The UK government has said they want to continue it. They haven't said how.

Some of the nonsense suggested by different UK officials so far has been to install cameras (no because of physical infrastructure, no because it wouldnt actually check what was in the truck), a buffer zone (aka two borders rather than one), mobile phone tracking, and now max fac or whatever it is being called (no because the EU doesn't want to extend the dispensation for NI and it is unworkable).

The EU has proposed a special status for NI and this was accepted by the UK as the backstop.

For people movement: Ireland doesn't really care - we have a common travel area with that is unlikely to be going anywhere. The UK might have a problem with that.

Britain has declared economic war. And it is losing the war badly.

Rushing around in pointless circles is not declaring war.

 

[dutchfire]

Has anyone actually ever tried an unenforced border? My googling just finds Brexiteer proposals and US-Mexico border asshattery.

Historically, I would say that the majority of borders was not enforced very actively (in the sense of guard posts).
Borders are often more about taxation than about migration, for taxation you don't need 100% control, you just need to win the numbers game.
Perhaps I should also repeat my mantra from the previous thread: "Borders are enforced in the interior".

 

[dutchfire]

The Windrush deportation scandal was created by Remainers while the UK was in the EU.

Let us go through the immediate timeline:

(a) Theresa May (voted Remain) promulgated the term 'hostile environment" and it was when
she was Home Secrearty that those lorries with the billboards were sent around London.

(b) Nigel Farage (the arch Leaver) referred to such billboards as "creepy"

(c) The Home Office card files containing lists of accompanied Windrush children were
destroyed to comply wth idiotic EU directives and/or regulations about data protection

(d) Amber Rudd (Remainer) was Home Secretary when the Windrush deportations were implemented.

And let us consider some of the context.

Firstly the need to carry identity cards in the UK was abolished not long after WW2 ended;
with the peacetime UK reverting to its tradition that people were innocent until proved guilty
and did not need generally proof.of identity. It was for the UK state to establish whether people
were in the UK illegally; but since the UK state first considered joining and joined the
EEC/EC/EU laws were incrementally changed to put the burden of proof on individuals.

Secondly the requirement to accommodate unlimited EU migrants put pressure on living
space in the UK and was therefore an incentive for the UK state to facilitate the removal of those
deemed unproductive, whether by deportation, or by emigration, to make room for EU migrants.

Thirdly the EU is very much a white peoples club and thereby its UK proponents
(Theresa May and Amber Rudd) supported white, rather than non white, migrants.

Remember joining the EEC was about closing links with the commonwealth (mostly
non white people) and developing links with Europe (mostly white people).

"The EU ate my homework" is a popular excuse when people don't want to own up to their own mistakes. We also saw it after the Grenfell disaster. Of course, it usually turns out to be wrong.
Here, an easy test is to observe that other EU countries do not have their own Windrush scandal, which strongly suggests that EU rules did not enforce the UK governments choices in this affair.

 

[Hrothbern]

How many people now in the UK are first or second generation Windrush ?

 

[Verbose]

Eurospeak propaganda: "four freedoms", "solidarity"....

The Common Market exists, and works, on the basis of that. Get over it.

Your banging on is the equivalent of the man who because he recognizes that an operating theatre cannot be made 100% bacteria-free concludes we might as well be said to be operating in a sewer.

Others get on with keeping the bugs at bay. And yeah, better facilities would be good, maybe even necessary, but hey, that probably is even achievable.

 

[Verbose]

Has anyone actually ever tried an unenforced border? My googling just finds Brexiteer proposals and US-Mexico border asshattery.

The Nordic countries? Norway is out of the EU, but these ran open borders and open labour markets between them before EU membership came on line.

The "Norway model" is of course one of these things invoked in Brexit. Norway closely aligns with the EU anyway.

There are (apparently) 41 connecting roads across the Swedish-Norwegian border (i.e. fit for motor traffic, metaled etc., never mind innumerable footpaths etc,). On only 12 of these border checks are in operation (the major ones). On the other 29 you just zip back and forth at will.

 

[EnglishEdward]

"The EU ate my homework" is a popular excuse when people don't want to own up to their own mistakes. We also saw it after the Grenfell disaster. Of course, it usually turns out to be wrong.
Here, an easy test is to observe that other EU countries do not have their own Windrush scandal, which strongly suggests that EU rules did not enforce the UK governments choices in this affair.

I did not say that EU rules enforced the UK governments choices in this affair.

But re-orienteering from being a gobal looking to a Europe looking country set the context.

My point is that it is the Remainer politicians, not the Leaver politicians or Leave voters who are responsible for the Windrush fiasco.

How many people now in the UK are first or second generation Windrush ?

I have no idea. Internet sources are inconsistent. Many of the Windrush would have been better advised to have applied
for naturalisation when naturalisation was cheaper and the government started monkeying about with the laws.

The thing is the government first mistakenly cut down on the number of IND staff as part of its austerity measures and secondly decided
to delegate work down to a lower civil service grade to save money. Many of those low grades were not briefed that children of commonlwealth
subjects had historically been permitted to stay in the 1960s and 1970s. And they were given; meet your deportation quota targets or get sacked.

When the Windrush generation said they had been here for years, the IND demanded proof. But as these were retired they had
not kept records and were therefore exposed to the adverse consequences of changing the burden of proof to the defendant.

 

[Arakhor]

My point is that it is the Remainer politicians, not the Leaver politicians or Leave voters who are responsible for the Windrush fiasco.

And I could say that Leaver politicians are responsible for the welfare fiasco and the horrible mess that is Universal Credit, but it's pointlessly divisive and drags Brexit into situations where it doesn't need to be.

 

[Silurian]

(c) The Home Office card files containing lists of accompanied Windrush children were
destroyed to comply wth idiotic EU directives and/or regulations about data protection

The landing cards were destroyed because the home office was moving out of the Whitgift Centre in Croydon.
The people in charge wanted to save money by shedding them rather than moving them.
The people actually doing the work said how useful they were but they were not listened too.

Nothing to do with the EU, everything to do with cost cutting and incompetence.


There are Brexit supporters across the entire political spectrum therefore Brexiteer's are responsible for everything that has ever happened.

 

[Hrothbern]

I have no idea. Internet sources are inconsistent

Yes... that's why I asked here.

I have no idea. Internet sources are inconsistent. Many of the Windrush would have been better advised to have applied
for naturalisation when naturalisation was cheaper and the government started monkeying about with the laws.

The thing is the government first mistakenly cut down on the number of IND staff as part of its austerity measures and secondly decided
to delegate work down to a lower civil service grade to save money. Many of those low grades were not briefed that children of commonlwealth
subjects had historically been permitted to stay in the 1960s and 1970s. And they were given; meet your deportation quota targets or get sacked.

When the Windrush generation said they had been here for years, the IND demanded proof. But as these were retired they had
not kept records and were therefore exposed to the adverse consequences of changing the burden of proof to the defendant.

How can you govern a country when you do not have your housekeeping management info in good order ?

And so indisputable and transparent that you can avoid a confusing melee only leading to fake info to support more polarised political positions ?
At the expense of good statemanship, at the expense of multi-partisan shared responsibility to govern as a parliament, based on shared realities ?


And in general the UK has a lot of valuable good govn info, although relatively much more by thinktanks related to govn than truly govn data sources as I am used to here in NL (or for example Germany).
So... is this really collateral damage from simplistic austerity ???
or more an unwillingness of the govn to steer on govn funded public accessible info, exposing a government to political policy questions based on a solid and shared reality of govn data ?
Avoiding good democracy based on independent info to all and shrugging off collateral damage from more erratic govn decisions.
And increasing under Tory and populist leaderships.

Here from one of our former colonies, Surinam, standard public data, available at the CBS, the Central Bureau of Statistics.
The govn CBS in the role of fetching and showing actual data, archiving history. Accessible in Dutch ofc and in English (for others like EU, OECD etc)
And yes... not all political parties here are happy with this traditional role of the CBS, especially the two rightwing populist parties shooting at it at every opportunity, accusing the CBS as fake news.
If our CBS comes up with another inconvenient truth, the response of news media is in fact a nice marker of how populist they position.

The geographical segregation you see is imo mostly from wanting to live close together. The importance of the big extended family and a preference for urbanised areas.

https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2015/48/half-of-the-surinamese-dutch-population-is-second-generation

 

[EnglishEdward]

The people in charge wanted to save money by shedding them rather than moving them.

They should have first been photographed, but then EU law on digital records identifying individuals
would have applied, and there was no money, remember austerity and the £171 m per week to the EU..

There are Brexit supporters across the entire political spectrum therefore
Brexiteer's are responsible for everything that has ever happened.

Yes, but neither Theresa May nor Amber Rudd (Home Secretaries) were Brexit supporters.

 

[Silurian]

They should have first been photographed, but then EU law on digital records identifying individuals
would have applied, and there was no money, remember austerity and the £171 m per week to the EU..

There is no EU law that would have prevented the documents being scanned.

The government has digitized many records and everyone accepts that that that is a good idea.
People also want access to the records about them controlled.
I am sure that you do not want say the record of the complaint you made about some anti social behavior to the police or local authority made available to the people carrying out the anti social behavior.

Since the EU did not prevent the document being scanned the failure to scan them is nothing to do with the EU.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I did not say that EU rules enforced the UK governments choices in this affair.

But re-orienteering from being a gobal looking to a Europe looking country set the context.

My point is that it is the Remainer politicians, not the Leaver politicians or Leave voters who are responsible for the Windrush fiasco.




I have no idea. Internet sources are inconsistent. Many of the Windrush would have been better advised to have applied
for naturalisation when naturalisation was cheaper and the government started monkeying about with the laws.

The thing is the government first mistakenly cut down on the number of IND staff as part of its austerity measures and secondly decided
to delegate work down to a lower civil service grade to save money. Many of those low grades were not briefed that children of commonlwealth
subjects had historically been permitted to stay in the 1960s and 1970s. And they were given; meet your deportation quota targets or get sacked.

When the Windrush generation said they had been here for years, the IND demanded proof. But as these were retired they had
not kept records and were therefore exposed to the adverse consequences of changing the burden of proof to the defendant.

Its the Conservative Party thats responsible for Windrush.

They should have first been photographed, but then EU law on digital records identifying individuals
would have applied, and there was no money, remember austerity and the £171 m per week to the EU..




Yes, but neither Theresa May nor Amber Rudd (Home Secretaries) were Brexit supporters.

But these were government policies. A home secretary doesn't invent policies and apply them w/o the rest of the Cabinet discussing and approving them.
Also the idea that the Brexiteers who are all rabidly anti-immigrant would've been more liberal than May or Rudd is laughable.

 

[dutchfire]

I did not say that EU rules enforced the UK governments choices in this affair.

(c) The Home Office card files containing lists of accompanied Windrush children were destroyed to comply wth idiotic EU directives and/or regulations about data protection
...
but since the UK state first considered joining and joined the
EEC/EC/EU laws were incrementally changed to put the burden of proof on individuals.

.....

 

[FriendlyFire]

Yes, but neither Theresa May nor Amber Rudd (Home Secretaries) were Brexit supporters.

Didnt all the Brexiter Politicians resign ?
Was it because they didnt want to touch Brexit with a 20 meter pole

 

[EnglishEdward]

The Home Office IND had a choice of scanning the arrivals cards and applying the EU rules on personal data to their
electronic images OR destroying them OR keeping them as paper copies and later applying the later expanded EU rules.

So EU rules were a factor, but the choice actually made was not directly imposed by the EU.

Its the Conservative Party thats responsible for Windrush.

Yes, but it was the Remainer wing of the Conservative party that was responsible for Windrush.

But these were government policies. A home secretary doesn't invent policies
and apply them w/o the rest of the Cabinet discussing and approving them.

I am not sure where you get that idea from.

Also the idea that the Brexiteers who are all rabidly anti-immigrant would've been more liberal than May or Rudd is laughable.

Not wishing to be an overseas territory of a continental European state has nothing to do with being anti-immigrant.

And protecting the UK from rabies is a separate issue.

Didnt all the Brexiter Politicians resign ?
Was it because they didnt want to touch Brexit with a 20 meter pole

No, most but not all of them have resigned and that is because they realised that Theresa May's plan was not Brexit.