Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
Well, your message has been: if we gain control of our frontiers, then all the migrants in Calais will start a new Jungle near Margate, complete with open sewers, instead of moving to, say, London. And why will they do that? Because I, the prime minister, says it will happen, because I will deliberately lose control of the frontiers, to serve you right, hahaha
This message was actually delivered by the prime minister himself. Triumphant stuff.
No the PM has said that if we didn't have the border at Calais then the French would simply waive them onto our soil. Once a refugee is on our soil they're nigh on impossible to remove as the rest of Europe have found out so we would end up with camps in our country rather than France.
All of which is true. The fact you find it an inconvenient truth doesn't mean it shouldn't be said.
But the French have explained why the Le Touquet Treaty is in their interests as well as ours.
It is until it isn't. If we start abandoning our international agreements it will be quite easy for France to abandon this one at the same time.
Except the French have explicitly said that it is not in their interests to do this no matter what the UK does in relation to the EU. It would simply attract far more migrants to Northern France.
You are simply repeating and trying to justify Cameron's lies and to be honest it destroys any credibility you might have. It reveals the paucity of any other Pro-EU arguments you might have.
We should just have our assylum processing centres set up around the world. I'm sure many countries in Africa would be glad to host them, and our maximum security prisoners, for an appropriate fee.
You can actually. You can have laws and enforce them impartially against foreigners as well as natives.
Depends what you are talking about. Open borders certainly hindered the ability of the French Government to protect its citizens in November. It doesn't matter how impartial you are, if you don't have the basic tools in place to prevent undesirables entering your country undetected you have lost before you start.
Actually, and somewhat at random, I was thinking about the obligations of a libertarian minimal state to protect its citizens from domestic and foreign enemies. Clearly such a state must defend against an armed invasion. If peaceable foreigners arrive then it should allow them to enter the country and not interfere with them while they obey the laws. If they break a law it should act against them.
I think there are two additional scenarios in the air at present. Firstly, peaceable foreigners may arrive in such numbers that existing residents may dislike it and object that their jobs or culture are under threat. A minimal state cannot do anything about that. On a libertarian view it is simply not a legitimate exercise of state power to preserve, say, the primacy of the English language or my job.
Secondly, there may be the scenario you mention: apparently peaceable foreigners who are actually anything but. What can be done about them (within the self-imposed limitations of a libertarian minimal state)? I think border controls that were designed solely to exclude such people would be fine (obligatory, even). However, border controls for any other purpose than protection against a genuine physical threat would not be.
Of course, France and Britain are light-years from being minimal states and I'm not a libertarian myself. But I like the idea that one should assume a minimal foundation for the state and then build upwards rather than assume a baroque cathedral and chip bits off.
In our current situation I think the question of screening arrivals for people that actively intend to harm us should be given higher priority than merely trying to reduce absolute numbers by any kind of accounting trick we can think of.
We also have to remember that as far as Islamist terrorists go, we are a net producer, so we can't solve this problem at the border. At least not entirely.
So your up for people from the EU who have past criminal records should be banned from free movement here ? I am.
We might stop Bastards like this coming here doing harm to our citizens.
Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
Well, your message has been: if we gain control of our frontiers, then all the migrants in Calais will start a new Jungle near Margate, complete with open sewers, instead of moving to, say, London. And why will they do that? Because I, the prime minister, says it will happen, because I will deliberately lose control of the frontiers, to serve you right, hahaha
This message was actually delivered by the prime minister himself. Triumphant stuff.
No the PM has said that if we didn't have the border at Calais then the French would simply waive them onto our soil. Once a refugee is on our soil they're nigh on impossible to remove as the rest of Europe have found out so we would end up with camps in our country rather than France.
All of which is true. The fact you find it an inconvenient truth doesn't mean it shouldn't be said.
But the French have explained why the Le Touquet Treaty is in their interests as well as ours.
It is until it isn't. If we start abandoning our international agreements it will be quite easy for France to abandon this one at the same time.
Except the French have explicitly said that it is not in their interests to do this no matter what the UK does in relation to the EU. It would simply attract far more migrants to Northern France.
You are simply repeating and trying to justify Cameron's lies and to be honest it destroys any credibility you might have. It reveals the paucity of any other Pro-EU arguments you might have.
I wouldn't trust what the French say as far as I could throw them, especially when this migrant crisis in Europe has yet to be resolved. If the French continue to get large numbers anyway and then they see a way to open the door to make that our problem rather than theirs you want to rely upon the goodness of France?
It would be very easy for the French government to turn around and terminate that Treaty while we are terminating the EU Treaties.
Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
Their message is that Cameron is a liar.
But Leave won't win by socking it to Cameron.
Maybe not, but in this instance, Cameron was lying.
No he wasn't. If we lose the French border then we'll have refugees landing in England and then we won't be realistically able to remove them. If you have a genius way of removing them then I think Greece and every other country in Europe will be interested.
It is easier to keep them out than it is to remove them.
We just tell any carrier, ferry or train or lorry, that it's your responsibility to keep them out. So they will. This is why there aren't 50,000 asylum seekers at Heathrow, every day. It works
At that point, the only way they can get here is by raft over the English Channel. But they can do that now. Yet they choose not to do so, because it is extremely fucking dangerous.
It is utterly abasing that the prime minister of Great Britain trots out this shite.
It works because that is the law with air travel, whereas French law forbids SCNF from carrying out document checks. So then what? This is not an imaginary problem or shite this is a real problem that was happening on a massive scale as recently as the start of the last decade.
The French have explained why it is in their interests to uphold the Le Touquet Treaty. They don't want huge numbers of illegal immigrants coming to Northern France. So, this is bullcrap from Cameron.
Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
Their message is that Cameron is a liar.
But Leave won't win by socking it to Cameron.
Maybe not, but in this instance, Cameron was lying.
No he wasn't. If we lose the French border then we'll have refugees landing in England and then we won't be realistically able to remove them. If you have a genius way of removing them then I think Greece and every other country in Europe will be interested.
It is easier to keep them out than it is to remove them.
Leavers have leapt onto the speculation that a million evil Syrians are going to be fast tracked onto cattle trains by Germany to the UK if we stay in, but Leavers look in askance at France being happy to shovel its refugee camp problem onto us if we leave.
I said: Always interesting. It seems to me that insurance rates like that indicate that there is considerable uncertainty about the value of "investment grade" bank debt which is 2008 all over again. As you say there seems to be a link to Deutsche Bank in particular as their stock has fallen a long way.
If we got to the point that the Sovereigns had to recapitalise the Banks once again I think there would be real issues of their solvency, especially for those that find it difficult to print. The collapse of the flow of easy credit from the Oil exporters' surpluses may also reduce liquidity at a difficult time.
The sovereigns won't be bailing out the banks again. Even the powers that be can see that the funds are simply not there for that. And look at the bail in laws that were introduced on the 1st January this year. The events in Cyprus were a dry run to see how the public would react to a haircut on their deposits. In this climate capital simply has to 'get off the grid'. The authorities wish to outlaw cash, in order to get their hands on every last penny of tax revenue they can, as well as to weaken the zero lower bound theory of interest rates....witness Japan going negative with deposits at the central bank last week, to join the EU, Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland. Even Deutsche Bank is screaming that negative interest rates are doing untold damage, and merely helping to propogate and entrench deflation, rather than stop it as ivory tower economics suggests. And getting off the grid means getting away from property. It wasn't mentioned in the mainstream media but prime central London property crashed 12% in a month after Osborne's property tax raid in the last budget, which is completely self defeating as a whole slug of tax revenue of those high earners in London spending on luxuries raising VAT revenue has been lost.
There have been ominous moves in the junk debt markets, I think that quite a few of the commodity conglomerates are going to go bust down the road such as Glencore. Much of their debt is in USD, which will add extra fuel to the USD rally in due course. I'm looking at the $25 as strong support for oil in the medium term, and think we'll get a corrective rally, but it should only be that. It took oil up at $147 in June 2008 to encourage all the investment in alterative energy sources. The days of oil as black gold are long since over, but an awful lot of malinvestment has taken place based on oil being permanently above $100. The market has a way of rendering the assumptions of the majority null and void, as has been the case here.
Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
Well, your message has been: if we gain control of our frontiers, then all the migrants in Calais will start a new Jungle near Margate, complete with open sewers, instead of moving to, say, London. And why will they do that? Because I, the prime minister, says it will happen, because I will deliberately lose control of the frontiers, to serve you right, hahaha
This message was actually delivered by the prime minister himself. Triumphant stuff.
No the PM has said that if we didn't have the border at Calais then the French would simply waive them onto our soil. Once a refugee is on our soil they're nigh on impossible to remove as the rest of Europe have found out so we would end up with camps in our country rather than France.
All of which is true. The fact you find it an inconvenient truth doesn't mean it shouldn't be said.
But the French have explained why the Le Touquet Treaty is in their interests as well as ours.
It is until it isn't. If we start abandoning our international agreements it will be quite easy for France to abandon this one at the same time.
If we voted Leave, we would not be abandoning our international agreements. We would have voted and it would be for the government of the day to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty etc. The French could give notice under the Le Touquet treaty: 2 years, apparently. But they too need to think of the consequences. The UK could, for instance, close the tunnel, in extremis, if the French simply stopped enforcing the treaty at a moment's notice. That is a pretty hostile act, particularly at a time of security concerns. Do you think that other countries on France's borders might worry about such action and what it might mean for them?
None of these measures are particularly sensible but the idea that Britain would be uniquely at risk of some French unilateral action and that there would be no adverse consequences for France or indeed pressures from other European countries on her is a bit fanciful.
More to the point, if this is what Cameron thinks the French might do, why the hell should I vote to Remain in a union which thinks like this of a neighbour? How can I trust the good faith of a country which won't stick by a treaty it has signed (according to Cameron) given that Cameron's deal depends on us believing in the good faith of France and 26 other countries?
Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
Their message is that Cameron is a liar.
But Leave won't win by socking it to Cameron.
Maybe not, but in this instance, Cameron was lying.
No he wasn't. If we lose the French border then we'll have refugees landing in England and then we won't be realistically able to remove them. If you have a genius way of removing them then I think Greece and every other country in Europe will be interested.
It is easier to keep them out than it is to remove them.
No we won't. That is just garbage. For that to happen we would have to have active French official collusion in the transport of illegal immigrants from the French coast to the UK. Either that or the complete collapse of the French State. These are the scenarios which are causing the migration across the Mediterranean. You might note that where there is stable Government with a police force enforcing the law on the African coast we do not see the massive numbers of migrants crossing in boats.
We wouldn't need either, we'd just need the French to stop co-operating with us pre-screening people before they arrive on our soil. If that co-operation stops then once they're on our soil and claim asylum in the UK they are our problem as was the FACT 15 years ago. That is why we negotiated this treaty and to suggest the problems of 15 years ago could return is not dishonest.
Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
Well, your message has been: if we gain control of our frontiers, then all the migrants in Calais will start a new Jungle near Margate, complete with open sewers, instead of moving to, say, London. And why will they do that? Because I, the prime minister, says it will happen, because I will deliberately lose control of the frontiers, to serve you right, hahaha
This message was actually delivered by the prime minister himself. Triumphant stuff.
No the PM has said that if we didn't have the border at Calais then the French would simply waive them onto our soil. Once a refugee is on our soil they're nigh on impossible to remove as the rest of Europe have found out so we would end up with camps in our country rather than France.
All of which is true. The fact you find it an inconvenient truth doesn't mean it shouldn't be said.
But the French have explained why the Le Touquet Treaty is in their interests as well as ours.
It is until it isn't. If we start abandoning our international agreements it will be quite easy for France to abandon this one at the same time.
Except the French have explicitly said that it is not in their interests to do this no matter what the UK does in relation to the EU. It would simply attract far more migrants to Northern France.
You are simply repeating and trying to justify Cameron's lies and to be honest it destroys any credibility you might have. It reveals the paucity of any other Pro-EU arguments you might have.
I wouldn't trust what the French say as far as I could throw them, especially when this migrant crisis in Europe has yet to be resolved. If the French continue to get large numbers anyway and then they see a way to open the door to make that our problem rather than theirs you want to rely upon the goodness of France?
It would be very easy for the French government to turn around and terminate that Treaty while we are terminating the EU Treaties.
Which rather begs the question why you wish to remain in a political union with them.
It would be amusing to dig out the Scottish threads from a couple of years ago to see how most of the most fervent Leavers thought RUK should act if Scotland voted for independence.
Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
Their message is that Cameron is a liar.
But Leave won't win by socking it to Cameron.
They won't win just by doing that, but damaging REMAIN's supposed USP and Great Salesman, Dave "The Plan" Cameron, is an important part of the job.
Weirdly, he seems intent on helping them, all by himself.
The key swing electorate are Tories. 90%+ plus think he walks on water.
Even if that drops a bit over this (and it hasn't much in 6 years) there are many loyal Tories who will be turned off by it who'd otherwise be for Leave.
Leave should attack the EU and the fact it's not serious about reform.
Whatever happens in the referendum, I want Cameron gone the day after. He's a contemptible liar. And on the most serious of issues.
I genuinely thought more of him. This shit is just.... eeeeurgh. Go away, you girning, ham faced twatling. Send your sons to Eton, now you've done pretendy state schooling. What a dose he is.
Fair enough. I just want to win the referendum.
Personally, I couldn't care less why someone votes Leave as long as 50%+ turn out and do vote Leave on the day itself. Any tactic or strategy that maximises the chances of that is what I'm interested in.
I know my party and socking it to Cameron - even if it makes some feel good - will be more likely to harm the cause rather than help it.
Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
Well, your message has been: if we gain control of our frontiers, then all the migrants in Calais will start a new Jungle near Margate, complete with open sewers, instead of moving to, say, London. And why will they do that? Because I, the prime minister, says it will happen, because I will deliberately lose control of the frontiers, to serve you right, hahaha
This message was actually delivered by the prime minister himself. Triumphant stuff.
No the PM has said that if we didn't have the border at Calais then the French would simply waive them onto our soil. Once a refugee is on our soil they're nigh on impossible to remove as the rest of Europe have found out so we would end up with camps in our country rather than France.
All of which is true. The fact you find it an inconvenient truth doesn't mean it shouldn't be said.
But the French have explained why the Le Touquet Treaty is in their interests as well as ours.
It is until it isn't. If we start abandoning our international agreements it will be quite easy for France to abandon this one at the same time.
Except the French have explicitly said that it is not in their interests to do this no matter what the UK does in relation to the EU. It would simply attract far more migrants to Northern France.
You are simply repeating and trying to justify Cameron's lies and to be honest it destroys any credibility you might have. It reveals the paucity of any other Pro-EU arguments you might have.
I wouldn't trust what the French say as far as I could throw them, especially when this migrant crisis in Europe has yet to be resolved. If the French continue to get large numbers anyway and then they see a way to open the door to make that our problem rather than theirs you want to rely upon the goodness of France?
It would be very easy for the French government to turn around and terminate that Treaty while we are terminating the EU Treaties.
I can trust people to follow their own interests.
If the French wave illegals through to the UK, then the result will be that rail and ferry services will be suspended and the French will have tens of thousands of illegals across the Pas de Calais.
Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
Their message is that Cameron is a liar.
But Leave won't win by socking it to Cameron.
Maybe not, but in this instance, Cameron was lying.
No he wasn't. If we lose the French border then we'll have refugees landing in England and then we won't be realistically able to remove them. If you have a genius way of removing them then I think Greece and every other country in Europe will be interested.
It is easier to keep them out than it is to remove them.
We just tell any carrier, ferry or train or lorry, that it's your responsibility to keep them out. So they will. This is why there aren't 50,000 asylum seekers at Heathrow, every day. It works
At that point, the only way they can get here is by raft over the English Channel. But they can do that now. Yet they choose not to do so, because it is extremely fucking dangerous.
It is utterly abasing that the prime minister of Great Britain trots out this shite.
It works because that is the law with air travel, whereas French law forbids SCNF from carrying out document checks. So then what? This is not an imaginary problem or shite this is a real problem that was happening on a massive scale as recently as the start of the last decade.
SCNF do not run Eurotunnel. So they have nothing to do with the car and lorry operations which are the biggest cause of problems. They do own 55% of Eurostar but the company itself comes under British law as well as French and so the British would be able to prosecute Eurostar if they allowed migrants to come to Britain through the tunnel.
If we voted Leave, we would not be abandoning our international agreements. We would have voted and it would be for the government of the day to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty etc. The French could give notice under the Le Touquet treaty: 2 years, apparently. But they too need to think of the consequences. The UK could, for instance, close the tunnel, in extremis, if the French simply stopped enforcing the treaty at a moment's notice. That is a pretty hostile act, particularly at a time of security concerns. Do you think that other countries on France's borders might worry about such action and what it might mean for them?
None of these measures are particularly sensible but the idea that Britain would be uniquely at risk of some French unilateral action and that there would be no adverse consequences for France or indeed pressures from other European countries on her is a bit fanciful.
More to the point, if this is what Cameron thinks the French might do, why the hell should I vote to Remain in a union which thinks like this of a neighbour? How can I trust the good faith of a country which won't stick by a treaty it has signed (according to Cameron) given that Cameron's deal depends on us believing in the good faith of France and 26 other countries?
Notice time we need to give under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty: 2 years. Notice time France need to give under Le Touquet Treaty: 2 years.
Yes of course we could close the Chunnel but that would cut of our land border from the entire continent not just France, France would only lose its land border with us.
As for why trust France, because the point is that France is honouring its treaty now but just as we are honouring our treaties that make us part of the EU. If we vote to start leaving treaties what is to prevent France from following OUR EXAMPLE and doing the same and vote to leave one with us?
There is no contradiction at all between Libertarianism and borders. We are talking about 'small state' not 'no state' and one of the basic duties mainstream Libertarians ascribe to the state is the maintenance of the integrity of the state and the protection of its citizens from external threat.
There is a branch of Libertarianism known as Propertarianism which advocates the only duties of the state to be to enforce contracts and property rights but this is a very extreme form which most Libertarians do not adhere to.
What I mean by Libertarian minimal state is one that:
defends against domestic and foreign threat enforces contracts and property rights
I think we're in agreement about that.
I don't think there's any contradiction between Libertarianism and border controls that are genuinely intended to protect citizens from threat, just as an army does. I think it's a different matter if the border controls are used to, say, prevent people from entering the country who might work for a lower wage than people already there. (I'm not saying that should or shouldn't be done. I'm just saying it's not consistent with Libertarianism.)
As I say, I'm not a Libertarian in practice and as it happens I would like the state to maintain the primacy of the English language and a secular society, by controlling the border if necessary. And since we have an extensive welfare state, we had better think about access to that also. (I think a pure Libertarian would have nothing to do with a welfare state but would also tell me where to stick my English language chauvinism.)
Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
Their message is that Cameron is a liar.
But Leave won't win by socking it to Cameron.
Maybe not, but in this instance, Cameron was lying.
No he wasn't. If we lose the French border then we'll have refugees landing in England and then we won't be realistically able to remove them. If you have a genius way of removing them then I think Greece and every other country in Europe will be interested.
It is easier to keep them out than it is to remove them.
No we won't. That is just garbage. For that to happen we would have to have active French official collusion in the transport of illegal immigrants from the French coast to the UK. Either that or the complete collapse of the French State. These are the scenarios which are causing the migration across the Mediterranean. You might note that where there is stable Government with a police force enforcing the law on the African coast we do not see the massive numbers of migrants crossing in boats.
We wouldn't need either, we'd just need the French to stop co-operating with us pre-screening people before they arrive on our soil. If that co-operation stops then once they're on our soil and claim asylum in the UK they are our problem as was the FACT 15 years ago. That is why we negotiated this treaty and to suggest the problems of 15 years ago could return is not dishonest.
Er no. The Tunnel operates exactly the same way as an airline. In the same way if they failed to prevent migrants from boarding they could be prosecuted. The company will do everything it can to avoid that. Again you are just making stuff up as part of the fear campaign.
Cameron is rapidly destroying his goodwill with the Conservative voters who might vote Remain out of loyalty .Look at the Daily Mail comments under the Calais story,up to almost 6000 comments and only a handful of support for him. I have never seen such anger and that is saying something for the DM commentariat. At the same time he is so tying himself to the EU mast that non- Conservatives will soon realise that he will have to go immediately if he loses the Referendum.That is a potential game changer for left wing voters who may not care that much either way on the EU issue.
Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
Their message is that Cameron is a liar.
But Leave won't win by socking it to Cameron.
Maybe not, but in this instance, Cameron was lying.
No he wasn't. If we lose the French border then we'll have refugees landing in England and then we won't be realistically able to remove them. If you have a genius way of removing them then I think Greece and every other country in Europe will be interested.
It is easier to keep them out than it is to remove them.
We just tell any carrier, ferry or train or lorry, that it's your responsibility to keep them out. So they will. This is why there aren't 50,000 asylum seekers at Heathrow, every day. It works
At that point, the only way they can get here is by raft over the English Channel. But they can do that now. Yet they choose not to do so, because it is extremely fucking dangerous.
It is utterly abasing that the prime minister of Great Britain trots out this shite.
It works because that is the law with air travel, whereas French law forbids SCNF from carrying out document checks. So then what? This is not an imaginary problem or shite this is a real problem that was happening on a massive scale as recently as the start of the last decade.
SCNF do not run Eurotunnel. So they have nothing to do with the car and lorry operations which are the biggest cause of problems. They do own 55% of Eurostar but the company itself comes under British law as well as French and so the British would be able to prosecute Eurostar if they allowed migrants to come to Britain through the tunnel.
Basically you are just repeating lies.
No, the law then would be that Eurostar are forbidden from screening passengers by French law (as they are now) and are penalised for not screening passengers by the British which means unless the French fold (and why would they if they are choosing to shift the migrants on to us) that we are effectively left with the choice of close Eurostar or accept unlimited asylum seekers (as we were doing 15 years ago).
These guys seriously, seriously just don't get it.
Some serious victim blaming here... She was 14 FFS , and this from a local councillor no doubt a pillar of local society also know as a " community leader" .
It takes two to tango....
"The gang of men from Pakistani origin were jailed for a total of 140 years at Bradford Crown Court today, for 13 months of horrendous abuse of the British white girl in 2011 and 2012. However, the councillor for Keighley Central, where the abuse took place, has admitted that some members of the Muslim community felt 'it takes two to tango' and that the girl may have 'played her part'
When you have this sort of case happening in Pakistan - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukhtār_Mā'ī - is it any surprise that certain people from that community would think that a child being raped is the equivalent of doing the "tango"?
I imagine EPG's response would be pretty similar. "White girls have always been slags", "this stuff happens to sluts, so what", "they wanted cigs, got a bit more, what's the big story".
Etc
And then the Labour Party turns around, and wonders why it has lost the support of the white working classes, across England and Scotland.
The other aspect of this, often forgotten, is that it is quite likely that girls and women within the community are also suffering abuse but are far less likely to speak up about it. That too is a horrendous crime which is often overlooked. It is not just an Asian-on-white crime. People who can treat a child like this are, I would guess, unlikely to be gentlemen in bed when it comes to their wives.
I am sure thatyou are right about abuse within the community. Read Ruzwana Bashirs account of the reaction to her telling her mother of how she was sexually abused by a member of the community:
Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
Well, your message has been: if we gain control of our frontiers, then all the migrants in Calais will start a new Jungle near Margate, complete with open sewers, instead of moving to, say, London. And why will they do that? Because I, the prime minister, says it will happen, because I will deliberately lose control of the frontiers, to serve you right, hahaha
This message was actually delivered by the prime minister himself. Triumphant stuff.
No the PM has said that if we didn't have the border at Calais then the French would simply waive them onto our soil. Once a refugee is on our soil they're nigh on impossible to remove as the rest of Europe have found out so we would end up with camps in our country rather than France.
All of which is true. The fact you find it an inconvenient truth doesn't mean it shouldn't be said.
But the French have explained why the Le Touquet Treaty is in their interests as well as ours.
It is until it isn't. If we start abandoning our international agreements it will be quite easy for France to abandon this one at the same time.
Except the French have explicitly said that it is not in their interests to do this no matter what the UK does in relation to the EU. It would simply attract far more migrants to Northern France.
You are simply repeating and trying to justify Cameron's lies and to be honest it destroys any credibility you might have. It reveals the paucity of any other Pro-EU arguments you might have.
I wouldn't trust what the French say as far as I could throw them, especially when this migrant crisis in Europe has yet to be resolved. If the French continue to get large numbers anyway and then they see a way to open the door to make that our problem rather than theirs you want to rely upon the goodness of France?
It would be very easy for the French government to turn around and terminate that Treaty while we are terminating the EU Treaties.
Were that to happen the UK government can simply threaten closure of the Tunnel. The resultant whinging from French shareholders and banks facing a massive loss on their investment will soon focus minds with regard to the Sangatte protocol.
Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
No the PM has said that if we didn't have the border at Calais then the French would simply waive them onto our soil. Once a refugee is on our soil they're nigh on impossible to remove as the rest of Europe have found out so we would end up with camps in our country rather than France.
All of which is true. The fact you find it an inconvenient truth doesn't mean it shouldn't be said.
Save that they are not refugees are they? France is a safe country. We are not talking about camps of Huguenots, are we?
I don't understand why the government doesn't just say that no-one from the camps who makes it to the UK will even be allowed to make an asylum claim since they are in a safe country, indeed in one of the most civilised in the world. Anyone who makes it across will be arrested and prosecuted and then deported and, if they refuse to say where are they from, they will be kept in secure detention until they do tell us or agree to go to some other country.
Others have already explained why it is unlikely we would have camps, what the French have said and what other steps might be taken.
The migrant issue is not going to be resolved either by voting Remain or Leave. It will still be there whatever the result. But Cameron is talking balls on this.
It doesn't matter one jot if France is a safe country or not, once on British soil they can claim asylum from our government and then that is that.
Furthermore since (unlike with air travel) there is no penalty for SCNF if an illegal immigrant travels to the UK from France this was a major problem just over a decade ago and easily could be again.
If they get kept in secure detention like you proposed then that is EXACTLY what Cameron said. So Cameron is a liar because what Cameron said is true? Go figure.
Secure detention is quite different from a shanty town in the middle of Kent.
My understanding is that if a person does not claim asylum in the first safe country he reaches, any other state they travel to is not obliged to consider their asylum claim. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
At any event, I think the government should simply make this the legal position. We will not entertain any asylum claims from anyone who has travelled here from Europe. Or from any other safe countries. If they want to emigrate here legally, they can get in the queue and make their case like anyone else.
Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
Their message is that Cameron is a liar.
But Leave won't win by socking it to Cameron.
Maybe not, but in this instance, Cameron was lying.
No he wasn't. If we lose the French border then we'll have refugees landing in England and then we won't be realistically able to remove them. If you have a genius way of removing them then I think Greece and every other country in Europe will be interested.
It is easier to keep them out than it is to remove them.
No we won't. That is just garbage. For that to happen we would have to have active French official collusion in the transport of illegal immigrants from the French coast to the UK. Either that or the complete collapse of the French State. These are the scenarios which are causing the migration across the Mediterranean. You might note that where there is stable Government with a police force enforcing the law on the African coast we do not see the massive numbers of migrants crossing in boats.
We wouldn't need either, we'd just need the French to stop co-operating with us pre-screening people before they arrive on our soil. If that co-operation stops then once they're on our soil and claim asylum in the UK they are our problem as was the FACT 15 years ago. That is why we negotiated this treaty and to suggest the problems of 15 years ago could return is not dishonest.
Yes it is dishonest because it will not happen. The French and the Eurotunnel companies have too much to lose. Stop making stuff up.
Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
Well, your message has been: if we gain control of our frontiers, then all the migrants in Calais will start a new Jungle near Margate, complete with open sewers, instead of moving to, say, London. And why will they do that? Because I, the prime minister, says it will happen, because I will deliberately lose control of the frontiers, to serve you right, hahaha
This message was actually delivered by the prime minister himself. Triumphant stuff.
No the PM has said that if we didn't have the border at Calais then the French would simply waive them onto our soil. Once a refugee is on our soil they're nigh on impossible to remove as the rest of Europe have found out so we would end up with camps in our country rather than France.
All of which is true. The fact you find it an inconvenient truth doesn't mean it shouldn't be said.
But the French have explained why the Le Touquet Treaty is in their interests as well as ours.
It is until it isn't. If we start abandoning our international agreements it will be quite easy for France to abandon this one at the same time.
Except the French have explicitly said that it is not in their interests to do this no matter what the UK does in relation to the EU. It would simply attract far more migrants to Northern France.
You are simply repeating and trying to justify Cameron's lies and to be honest it destroys any credibility you might have. It reveals the paucity of any other Pro-EU arguments you might have.
I wouldn't trust what the French say as far as I could throw them, especially when this migrant crisis in Europe has yet to be resolved. If the French continue to get large numbers anyway and then they see a way to open the door to make that our problem rather than theirs you want to rely upon the goodness of France?
It would be very easy for the French government to turn around and terminate that Treaty while we are terminating the EU Treaties.
Were that to happen the UK government can simply threaten closure of the Tunnel. The resultant whinging from French shareholders and banks facing a massive loss on their investment will soon focus minds with regard to the Sangatte protocol.
As well as the whinging from British ones too. That is a very high stakes poker hand to play, are you 100% sure the French won't call our bluff?
If we voted Leave, we would not be abandoning our international agreements. We would have voted and it would be for the government of the day to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty etc. The French could give notice under the Le Touquet treaty: 2 years, apparently. But they too need to think of the consequences. The UK could, for instance, close the tunnel, in extremis, if the French simply stopped enforcing the treaty at a moment's notice. That is a pretty hostile act, particularly at a time of security concerns. Do you think that other countries on France's borders might worry about such action and what it might mean for them?
None of these measures are particularly sensible but the idea that Britain would be uniquely at risk of some French unilateral action and that there would be no adverse consequences for France or indeed pressures from other European countries on her is a bit fanciful.
More to the point, if this is what Cameron thinks the French might do, why the hell should I vote to Remain in a union which thinks like this of a neighbour? How can I trust the good faith of a country which won't stick by a treaty it has signed (according to Cameron) given that Cameron's deal depends on us believing in the good faith of France and 26 other countries?
Notice time we need to give under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty: 2 years. Notice time France need to give under Le Touquet Treaty: 2 years.
Yes of course we could close the Chunnel but that would cut of our land border from the entire continent not just France, France would only lose its land border with us.
As for why trust France, because the point is that France is honouring its treaty now but just as we are honouring our treaties that make us part of the EU. If we vote to start leaving treaties what is to prevent France from following OUR EXAMPLE and doing the same and vote to leave one with us?
Do you think the French just signed this treaty out of the kindness of their hearts? Or do you think they signed it because they thought it in their interests?
Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
Their message is that Cameron is a liar.
But Leave won't win by socking it to Cameron.
Maybe not, but in this instance, Cameron was lying.
No he wasn't. If we lose the French border then we'll have refugees landing in England and then we won't be realistically able to remove them. If you have a genius way of removing them then I think Greece and every other country in Europe will be interested.
It is easier to keep them out than it is to remove them.
Leavers have leapt onto the speculation that a million evil Syrians are going to be fast tracked onto cattle trains by Germany to the UK if we stay in, but Leavers look in askance at France being happy to shovel its refugee camp problem onto us if we leave.
Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
Their message is that Cameron is a liar.
But Leave won't win by socking it to Cameron.
Maybe not, but in this instance, Cameron was lying.
No he wasn't. If we lose the French border then we'll have refugees landing in England and then we won't be realistically able to remove them. If you have a genius way of removing them then I think Greece and every other country in Europe will be interested.
It is easier to keep them out than it is to remove them.
No we won't. That is just garbage. For that to happen we would have to have active French official collusion in the transport of illegal immigrants from the French coast to the UK. Either that or the complete collapse of the French State. These are the scenarios which are causing the migration across the Mediterranean. You might note that where there is stable Government with a police force enforcing the law on the African coast we do not see the massive numbers of migrants crossing in boats.
We wouldn't need either, we'd just need the French to stop co-operating with us pre-screening people before they arrive on our soil. If that co-operation stops then once they're on our soil and claim asylum in the UK they are our problem as was the FACT 15 years ago. That is why we negotiated this treaty and to suggest the problems of 15 years ago could return is not dishonest.
Yes it is dishonest because it will not happen. The French and the Eurotunnel companies have too much to lose. Stop making stuff up.
We have just as much to lose to. So you're relying on the French not deciding to call our bluff on this. Great, that seems reliable.
It would be amusing to dig out the Scottish threads from a couple of years ago to see how most of the most fervent Leavers thought RUK should act if Scotland voted for independence.
That was the break up of a country not leaving a set of international agreements that are proving disagreeable to all parties
If we voted Leave, we would not be abandoning our international agreements. We would have voted and it would be for the government of the day to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty etc. The French could give notice under the Le Touquet treaty: 2 years, apparently. But they too need to think of the consequences. The UK could, for instance, close the tunnel, in extremis, if the French simply stopped enforcing the treaty at a moment's notice. That is a pretty hostile act, particularly at a time of security concerns. Do you think that other countries on France's borders might worry about such action and what it might mean for them?
None of these measures are particularly sensible but the idea that Britain would be uniquely at risk of some French unilateral action and that there would be no adverse consequences for France or indeed pressures from other European countries on her is a bit fanciful.
More to the point, if this is what Cameron thinks the French might do, why the hell should I vote to Remain in a union which thinks like this of a neighbour? How can I trust the good faith of a country which won't stick by a treaty it has signed (according to Cameron) given that Cameron's deal depends on us believing in the good faith of France and 26 other countries?
Notice time we need to give under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty: 2 years. Notice time France need to give under Le Touquet Treaty: 2 years.
Yes of course we could close the Chunnel but that would cut of our land border from the entire continent not just France, France would only lose its land border with us.
As for why trust France, because the point is that France is honouring its treaty now but just as we are honouring our treaties that make us part of the EU. If we vote to start leaving treaties what is to prevent France from following OUR EXAMPLE and doing the same and vote to leave one with us?
Do you think the French just signed this treaty out of the kindness of their hearts? Or do you think they signed it because they thought it in their interests?
They thought it in their interests just as us signing the Lisbon treaty was deemed by the government of the day to be in our interests ...
Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
Their message is that Cameron is a liar.
But Leave won't win by socking it to Cameron.
Maybe not, but in this instance, Cameron was lying.
No he wasn't. If we lose the French border then we'll have refugees landing in England and then we won't be realistically able to remove them. If you have a genius way of removing them then I think Greece and every other country in Europe will be interested.
It is easier to keep them out than it is to remove them.
We just tell any carrier, ferry or train or lorry, that it's your responsibility to keep them out. So they will. This is why there aren't 50,000 asylum seekers at Heathrow, every day. It works
At that point, the only way they can get here is by raft over the English Channel. But they can do that now. Yet they choose not to do so, because it is extremely fucking dangerous.
It is utterly abasing that the prime minister of Great Britain trots out this shite.
It works because that is the law with air travel, whereas French law forbids SCNF from carrying out document checks. So then what? This is not an imaginary problem or shite this is a real problem that was happening on a massive scale as recently as the start of the last decade.
SCNF do not run Eurotunnel. So they have nothing to do with the car and lorry operations which are the biggest cause of problems. They do own 55% of Eurostar but the company itself comes under British law as well as French and so the British would be able to prosecute Eurostar if they allowed migrants to come to Britain through the tunnel.
Basically you are just repeating lies.
No, the law then would be that Eurostar are forbidden from screening passengers by French law (as they are now) and are penalised for not screening passengers by the British which means unless the French fold (and why would they if they are choosing to shift the migrants on to us) that we are effectively left with the choice of close Eurostar or accept unlimited asylum seekers (as we were doing 15 years ago).
We close Eurostar then. If they're unable or unwilling to screen passengers, their business will no longer be permitted to operate. Any airline repeatedly flying planeloads of illegal immigrants into Heathrow would face the same consequences.
Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
Well, your message has been: if we gain control of our frontiers, then all the migrants in Calais will start a new Jungle near Margate, complete with open sewers, instead of moving to, say, London. And why will they do that? Because I, the prime minister, says it will happen, because I will deliberately lose control of the frontiers, to serve you right, hahaha
This message was actually delivered by the prime minister himself. Triumphant stuff.
No the PM has said that if we didn't have the border at Calais then the French would simply waive them onto our soil. Once a refugee is on our soil they're nigh on impossible to remove as the rest of Europe have found out so we would end up with camps in our country rather than France.
All of which is true. The fact you find it an inconvenient truth doesn't mean it shouldn't be said.
But the French have explained why the Le Touquet Treaty is in their interests as well as ours.
It is until it isn't. If we start abandoning our international agreements it will be quite easy for France to abandon this one at the same time.
Except the French have explicitly said that it is not in their interests to do this no matter what the UK does in relation to the EU. It would simply attract far more migrants to Northern France.
You are simply repeating and trying to justify Cameron's lies and to be honest it destroys any credibility you might have. It reveals the paucity of any other Pro-EU arguments you might have.
I wouldn't trust what the French say as far as I could throw them, especially when this migrant crisis in Europe has yet to be resolved. If the French continue to get large numbers anyway and then they see a way to open the door to make that our problem rather than theirs you want to rely upon the goodness of France?
It would be very easy for the French government to turn around and terminate that Treaty while we are terminating the EU Treaties.
So you admit the French could repudiate the treaty even if we stayed in the EU?
It would be amusing to dig out the Scottish threads from a couple of years ago to see how most of the most fervent Leavers thought RUK should act if Scotland voted for independence.
That was the break up of a country not leaving a set of international agreements that are proving disagreeable to all parties
Don't be so soft. The two are exactly analogous. If you tell someone you no longer wish to be their best friend, don't be surprised when they act accordingly.
Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
Well, your message has been: if we gain control of our frontiers, then all the migrants in Calais will start a new Jungle near Margate, complete with open sewers, instead of moving to, say, London. And why will they do that? Because I, the prime minister, says it will happen, because I will deliberately lose control of the frontiers, to serve you right, hahaha
This message was actually delivered by the prime minister himself. Triumphant stuff.
No the PM has said that if we didn't have the border at Calais then the French would simply waive them onto our soil. Once a refugee is on our soil they're nigh on impossible to remove as the rest of Europe have found out so we would end up with camps in our country rather than France.
All of which is true. The fact you find it an inconvenient truth doesn't mean it shouldn't be said.
But the French have explained why the Le Touquet Treaty is in their interests as well as ours.
It is until it isn't. If we start abandoning our international agreements it will be quite easy for France to abandon this one at the same time.
Except the French have explicitly said that it is not in their interests to do this no matter what the UK does in relation to the EU. It would simply attract far more migrants to Northern France.
You are simply repeating and trying to justify Cameron's lies and to be honest it destroys any credibility you might have. It reveals the paucity of any other Pro-EU arguments you might have.
I wouldn't trust what the French say as far as I could throw them, especially when this migrant crisis in Europe has yet to be resolved. If the French continue to get large numbers anyway and then they see a way to open the door to make that our problem rather than theirs you want to rely upon the goodness of France?
It would be very easy for the French government to turn around and terminate that Treaty while we are terminating the EU Treaties.
So you admit the French could repudiate the treaty even if we stayed in the EU?
It's a slam dunk for Remain.
Of course they could, but I find it a lot less likely. Once treaties start to get ripped up you're opening Pandora's box and Le Touquet is very unpopular in large parts of France.
The FT is leading tomorrow with a story that HSBC is going to stay in London. That's an important story if it's true.
Money talks. Their customers in the East have doubtless made it clear that they would prefer to keep their cash safe in a London bank rather than one based within reach of the government in Beijing.
This may be true. But does where a bank situates its headquarters affect the security of your money if it is held in a branch in another country?
Less than 1% of bank deposits are held in cash in branches.
Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
Their message is that Cameron is a liar.
But Leave won't win by socking it to Cameron.
Maybe not, but in this instance, Cameron was lying.
No he wasn't. If we lose the French border then we'll have refugees landing in England and then we won't be realistically able to remove them. If you have a genius way of removing them then I think Greece and every other country in Europe will be interested.
It is easier to keep them out than it is to remove them.
Leavers have leapt onto the speculation that a million evil Syrians are going to be fast tracked onto cattle trains by Germany to the UK if we stay in, but Leavers look in askance at France being happy to shovel its refugee camp problem onto us if we leave.
Ah I see the village idiot has turned up.
Indeed,the dutch somalis proberly had to wait for the Dutch passports,just like the refugees/migrants in Germany,didn't stop them coming thou.
We should just have our assylum processing centres set up around the world. I'm sure many countries in Africa would be glad to host them, and our maximum security prisoners, for an appropriate fee.
Well we actually do or is that what you meant? They are called Embassies. Problem is these people have no intention of going there as they would not stand a hope in hells chance of being considered legitimate and issued with a visa. Hence Calais camp of course.
We close Eurostar then. If they're unable or unwilling to screen passengers, their business will no longer be permitted to operate. Any airline repeatedly flying planeloads of illegal immigrants into Heathrow would face the same consequences.
Do you have any idea how much damage that would do to UK businesses?
It would be amusing to dig out the Scottish threads from a couple of years ago to see how most of the most fervent Leavers thought RUK should act if Scotland voted for independence.
Indeed. The echoes are endless. The Nats maintained that rUK would bend over backwards to keep things nice with Scotland. Oh how we laughed. Now many of the same people maintain that the EU would bend over backwards to be nice to the UK after Brexit. Like the Nats they fervently maintain they would because it is in their own interests to do so.
The reality is that anyone who does not admit that a Leave vote will cause at least 2 years of uncertainty as the Article 50 notice winds down, that the extent, terms and cost of our access to the Single market after that date is not within our own grasp and dependent on the views of others and that there are serious financial and economic risks in this is just not being honest.
It is perfectly proper to argue that it is more likely than not that the final outcome of these negotiations will be at least as favourable as remaining in the EU but it is dishonest to pretend there will not be adverse consequences as well as benefits.
You have mentioned a few times your guide to international cock ups, could you repost that I seem to have missed it and I am sure I can put it to good use . Thanks.
No, the law then would be that Eurostar are forbidden from screening passengers by French law (as they are now) and are penalised for not screening passengers by the British which means unless the French fold (and why would they if they are choosing to shift the migrants on to us) that we are effectively left with the choice of close Eurostar or accept unlimited asylum seekers (as we were doing 15 years ago).
More scare mongering. The political pressure from the UK to prosecute Eurostar, even if it meant the company being forced to stop operating, would be immense. So in the end it would come back to a decision by the UK government and with the way the migrant crisis is now viewed no government that refused to enforce existing UK law to prevent migration would last more than 5 minutes.
Stop repeating Cameron's lies and admit this is just unfounded scare mongering.
Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
Their message is that Cameron is a liar.
But Leave won't win by socking it to Cameron.
They won't win just by doing that, but damaging REMAIN's supposed USP and Great Salesman, Dave "The Plan" Cameron, is an important part of the job.
Weirdly, he seems intent on helping them, all by himself.
The key swing electorate are Tories. 90%+ plus think he walks on water.
Even if that drops a bit over this (and it hasn't much in 6 years) there are many loyal Tories who will be turned off by it who'd otherwise be for Leave.
Leave should attack the EU and the fact it's not serious about reform.
Whatever happens in the referendum, I want Cameron gone the day after. He's a contemptible liar. And on the most serious of issues.
I genuinely thought more of him. This shit is just.... eeeeurgh. Go away, you girning, ham faced twatling. Send your sons to Eton, now you've done pretendy state schooling. What a dose he is.
Fair enough. I just want to win the referendum.
Personally, I couldn't care less why someone votes Leave as long as 50%+ turn out and do vote Leave on the day itself. Any tactic or strategy that maximises the chances of that is what I'm interested in.
I know my party and socking it to Cameron - even if it makes some feel good - will be more likely to harm the cause rather than help it.
I'm not a Tory. Never have been, never will be. I've never joined a political party.
I genially despise politicians, of all stripes (as I am sure they despise journalists like me). However I had a certain regard for Cameron, after I initially and wrongly dismissed him as a gaylording ponceyboots. But I don't see how he comes back from this.
He has alienated too many. He has blatantly lied to his own party on an issue where he knows they are highly informed - the EU. It's repulsive. He will be the Tory Blair. An election winner who is nonetheless reviled. Good. He deserves it for that "deal", all by itself.
I happened across a pre election thread earlier on today, trust me, you weren't showing a certain regard for Cameron then.
Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
No the PM has said that if we didn't have the border at Calais then the French would simply waive them onto our soil. Once a refugee is on our soil they're nigh on impossible to remove as the rest of Europe have found out so we would end up with camps in our country rather than France.
All of which is true. The fact you find it an inconvenient truth doesn't mean it shouldn't be said.
Save that they are not refugees are they? France is a safe country. We are not talking about camps of Huguenots, are we?
I don't understand
It doesn't matter one jot if France is a safe country or not, once on British soil they can claim asylum from our government and then that is that.
Furthermore since (unlike with air travel) there is no penalty for SCNF if an illegal immigrant travels to the UK from France this was a major problem just over a decade ago and easily could be again.
If they get kept in secure detention like you proposed then that is EXACTLY what Cameron said. So Cameron is a liar because what Cameron said is true? Go figure.
Secure detention is quite different from a shanty town in the middle of Kent.
My understanding is that if a person does not claim asylum in the first safe country he reaches, any other state they travel to is not obliged to consider their asylum claim. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
At any event, I think the government should simply make this the legal position. We will not entertain any asylum claims from anyone who has travelled here from Europe. Or from any other safe countries. If they want to emigrate here legally, they can get in the queue and make their case like anyone else.
The practical difficulty is deportation, and not just because of the repetitive appeals. Deporting people back to Syria, Eritrea or Afghanistan is not easy. Indeed even deportation to Morocco is difficult.
My preferred plan is to offshore detention. Sierra Leone would be a good bet. If detainees do escape then it is not too much of a problem, as they would have to start again. It would provide employment in SL and they owe us a few favours!
It would be amusing to dig out the Scottish threads from a couple of years ago to see how most of the most fervent Leavers thought RUK should act if Scotland voted for independence.
Indeed. The echoes are endless. The Nats maintained that rUK would bend over backwards to keep things nice with Scotland. Oh how we laughed. Now many of the same people maintain that the EU would bend over backwards to be nice to the UK after Brexit. Like the Nats they fervently maintain they would because it is in their own interests to do so.
The reality is that anyone who does not admit that a Leave vote will cause at least 2 years of uncertainty as the Article 50 notice winds down, that the extent, terms and cost of our access to the Single market after that date is not within our own grasp and dependent on the views of others and that there are serious financial and economic risks in this is just not being honest.
It is perfectly proper to argue that it is more likely than not that the final outcome of these negotiations will be at least as favourable as remaining in the EU but it is dishonest to pretend there will not be adverse consequences as well as benefits.
Well at least some of us were and are in favour of Scottish Independence as a positive development and would certainly have opposed any retaliation or bad faith dealings by the rUK.
I would think a result along those lines would see Christie drop out and Kasich a stay in for a while, probably until Super Tuesday. Bush would limp on out of pride, but I wouldn't see him lasting beyond SC unless a miracle happens. i.e. a four horse race after SC of Trump, Cruz, Rubio and Kasich.
Indeed, though Kasich really needs second for that to happen
No, the law then would be that Eurostar are forbidden from screening passengers by French law (as they are now) and are penalised for not screening passengers by the British which means unless the French fold (and why would they if they are choosing to shift the migrants on to us) that we are effectively left with the choice of close Eurostar or accept unlimited asylum seekers (as we were doing 15 years ago).
More scare mongering. The political pressure from the UK to prosecute Eurostar, even if it meant the company being forced to stop operating, would be immense. So in the end it would come back to a decision by the UK government and with the way the migrant crisis is now viewed no government that refused to enforce existing UK law to prevent migration would last more than 5 minutes.
Stop repeating Cameron's lies and admit this is just unfounded scare mongering.
It's not a lie, it is a problem that existed in real life within my memory. It is a lie to say that problem could not return.
Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
Their message is that Cameron is a liar.
But Leave won't win by socking it to Cameron.
They won't win just by doing that, but damaging REMAIN's supposed USP and Great Salesman, Dave "The Plan" Cameron, is an important part of the job.
Weirdly, he seems intent on helping them, all by himself.
The key swing electorate are Tories. 90%+ plus think he walks on water.
Even if that drops a bit over this (and it hasn't much in 6 years) there are many loyal Tories who will be turned off by it who'd otherwise be for Leave.
Leave should attack the EU and the fact it's not serious about reform.
Whatever happens in the referendum, I want Cameron gone the day after. He's a contemptible liar. And on the most serious of issues.
I genuinely thought more of him. This shit is just.... eeeeurgh. Go away, you girning, ham faced twatling. Send your sons to Eton, now you've done pretendy state schooling. What a dose he is.
Fair enough. I just want to win the referendum.
Personally, I couldn't care less why someone votes Leave as long as 50%+ turn out and do vote Leave on the day itself. Any tactic or strategy that maximises the chances of that is what I'm interested in.
I know my party and socking it to Cameron - even if it makes some feel good - will be more likely to harm the cause rather than help it.
The trouble is as we see from SeanT's vulgar hysteria, all the referendum is about from one wing is for the Right to gain some revenge and hegemony. The fact that the exit destination is in no way any real difference from where we would be after the renegotiations probably suits them. Opposition to the EU itself has just descended into an alternative way to be nasty to dark skinned immigrants. Cameron is planning to leave sometime in 2019ish anyway so of course this is why we see the attacks on his surrogate, Osborne. Quite why a few thick tory backbenchers think its clever to imitate Corbynism is a bit of a mystery.
It would be amusing to dig out the Scottish threads from a couple of years ago to see how most of the most fervent Leavers thought RUK should act if Scotland voted for independence.
Indeed. The echoes are endless. The Nats maintained that rUK would bend over backwards to keep things nice with Scotland. Oh how we laughed. Now many of the same people maintain that the EU would bend over backwards to be nice to the UK after Brexit. Like the Nats they fervently maintain they would because it is in their own interests to do so.
The reality is that anyone who does not admit that a Leave vote will cause at least 2 years of uncertainty as the Article 50 notice winds down, that the extent, terms and cost of our access to the Single market after that date is not within our own grasp and dependent on the views of others and that there are serious financial and economic risks in this is just not being honest.
It is perfectly proper to argue that it is more likely than not that the final outcome of these negotiations will be at least as favourable as remaining in the EU but it is dishonest to pretend there will not be adverse consequences as well as benefits.
There will be downsides but, for the record, I said on here prior to the indyref that rUK would cut a practical deal with an independent Scotland and I thought the 'can't use the pound' argument was bogus.
They would, of course, have needed to follow the BoE rules and keep a very tight fiscal/monetary policy though.
The FT is leading tomorrow with a story that HSBC is going to stay in London. That's an important story if it's true.
Money talks. Their customers in the East have doubtless made it clear that they would prefer to keep their cash safe in a London bank rather than one based within reach of the government in Beijing.
This may be true. But does where a bank situates its headquarters affect the security of your money if it is held in a branch in another country?
Less than 1% of bank deposits are held in cash in branches.
Of course they could, but I find it a lot less likely. Once treaties start to get ripped up you're opening Pandora's box and Le Touquet is very unpopular in large parts of France.
No one is ripping up any treaties. If we do leave it will be under the terms of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which makes allowances and sets out the procedure for exactly such an event.
It would be amusing to dig out the Scottish threads from a couple of years ago to see how most of the most fervent Leavers thought RUK should act if Scotland voted for independence.
That was the break up of a country not leaving a set of international agreements that are proving disagreeable to all parties
Don't be so soft. The two are exactly analogous. If you tell someone you no longer wish to be their best friend, don't be surprised when they act accordingly.
No reason not to have strong friendship with the French. We have seldom ever been "best" friends. We do have strong links militarily and commercially, neither side would wish to downgrade those links imho.
Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
Their message is that Cameron is a liar.
But Leave won't win by socking it to Cameron.
They won't win just by doing that, but damaging REMAIN's supposed USP and Great Salesman, Dave "The Plan" Cameron, is an important part of the job.
Weirdly, he seems intent on helping them, all by himself.
The key swing electorate are Tories. 90%+ plus think he walks on water.
Even if that drops a bit over this (and it hasn't much in 6 years) there are many loyal Tories who will be turned off by it who'd otherwise be for Leave.
Leave should attack the EU and the fact it's not serious about reform.
Whatever happens in the referendum, I want Cameron gone the day after. He's a contemptible liar. And on the most serious of issues.
I genuinely thought more of him. This shit is just.... eeeeurgh. Go away, you girning, ham faced twatling. Send your sons to Eton, now you've done pretendy state schooling. What a dose he is.
Fair enough. I just want to win the referendum.
Personally, I couldn't care less why someone votes Leave as long as 50%+ turn out and do vote Leave on the day itself. Any tactic or strategy that maximises the chances of that is what I'm interested in.
I know my party and socking it to Cameron - even if it makes some feel good - will be more likely to harm the cause rather than help it.
I'm not a Tory. Never have been, never will be. I've never joined a political party.
I genially despise politicians, of all stripes (as I am sure they despise journalists like me). However I had a certain regard for Cameron, after I initially and wrongly dismissed him as a gaylording ponceyboots. But I don't see how he comes back from this.
He has alienated too many. He has blatantly lied to his own party on an issue where he knows they are highly informed - the EU. It's repulsive. He will be the Tory Blair. An election winner who is nonetheless reviled. Good. He deserves it for that "deal", all by itself.
Of course they could, but I find it a lot less likely. Once treaties start to get ripped up you're opening Pandora's box and Le Touquet is very unpopular in large parts of France.
No one is ripping up any treaties. If we do leave it will be under the terms of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which makes allowances and sets out the procedure for exactly such an event.
Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
Their message is that Cameron is a liar.
But Leave won't win by socking it to Cameron.
They won't win just by doing that, but damaging REMAIN's supposed USP and Great Salesman, Dave "The Plan" Cameron, is an important part of the job.
Weirdly, he seems intent on helping them, all by himself.
The key swing electorate are Tories. 90%+ plus think he walks on water.
Even if that drops a bit over this (and it hasn't much in 6 years) there are many loyal Tories who will be turned off by it who'd otherwise be for Leave.
Leave should attack the EU and the fact it's not serious about reform.
Whatever happens in the referendum, I want Cameron gone the day after. He's a contemptible liar. And on the most serious of issues.
I genuinely thought more of him. This shit is just.... eeeeurgh. Go away, you girning, ham faced twatling. Send your sons to Eton, now you've done pretendy state schooling. What a dose he is.
Fair enough. I just want to win the referendum.
Personally, I couldn't care less why someone votes Leave as long as 50%+ turn out and do vote Leave on the day itself. Any tactic or strategy that maximises the chances of that is what I'm interested in.
I know my party and socking it to Cameron - even if it makes some feel good - will be more likely to harm the cause rather than help it.
The trouble is as we see from SeanT's vulgar hysteria, all the referendum is about from one wing is for the Right to gain some revenge and hegemony. The fact that the exit destination is in no way any real difference from where we would be after the renegotiations probably suits them. Opposition to the EU itself has just descended into an alternative way to be nasty to dark skinned immigrants. Cameron is planning to leave sometime in 2019ish anyway so of course this is why we see the attacks on his surrogate, Osborne. Quite why a few thick tory backbenchers think its clever to imitate Corbynism is a bit of a mystery.
'Anyone who wants to leave the EU is a racist'. This is laughable and desperate stuff.
Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
Their message is that Cameron is a liar.
But Leave won't win by socking it to Cameron.
They won't win just by doing that, but damaging REMAIN's supposed USP and Great Salesman, Dave "The Plan" Cameron, is an important part of the job.
Weirdly, he seems intent on helping them, all by himself.
The key swing electorate are Tories. 90%+ plus think he walks on water.
Even if that drops a bit over this (and it hasn't much in 6 years) there are many loyal Tories who will be turned off by it who'd otherwise be for Leave.
Leave should attack the EU and the fact it's not serious about reform.
Whatever happens in the referendum, I want Cameron gone the day after. He's a contemptible liar. And on the most serious of issues.
I genuinely thought more of him. This shit is just.... eeeeurgh. Go away, you girning, ham faced twatling. Send your sons to Eton, now you've done pretendy state schooling. What a dose he is.
Fair enough. I just want to win the referendum.
Personally, I couldn't care less why someone votes Leave as long as 50%+ turn out and do vote Leave on the day itself. Any tactic or strategy that maximises the chances of that is what I'm interested in.
I know my party and socking it to Cameron - even if it makes some feel good - will be more likely to harm the cause rather than help it.
I'm not a Tory. Never have been, never will be. I've never joined a political party.
I genially despise politicians, of all stripes (as I am sure they despise journalists like me). However I had a certain regard for Cameron, after I initially and wrongly dismissed him as a gaylording ponceyboots. But I don't see how he comes back from this.
He has alienated too many. He has blatantly lied to his own party on an issue where he knows they are highly informed - the EU. It's repulsive. He will be the Tory Blair. An election winner who is nonetheless reviled. Good. He deserves it for that "deal", all by itself.
We used to joke about Cameron coming back from Europe, with a worthless piece of paper in his hand, a la Chamberlain.
No, the law then would be that Eurostar are forbidden from screening passengers by French law (as they are now) and are penalised for not screening passengers by the British which means unless the French fold (and why would they if they are choosing to shift the migrants on to us) that we are effectively left with the choice of close Eurostar or accept unlimited asylum seekers (as we were doing 15 years ago).
More scare mongering. The political pressure from the UK to prosecute Eurostar, even if it meant the company being forced to stop operating, would be immense. So in the end it would come back to a decision by the UK government and with the way the migrant crisis is now viewed no government that refused to enforce existing UK law to prevent migration would last more than 5 minutes.
Stop repeating Cameron's lies and admit this is just unfounded scare mongering.
It's not a lie, it is a problem that existed in real life within my memory. It is a lie to say that problem could not return.
The FT is leading tomorrow with a story that HSBC is going to stay in London. That's an important story if it's true.
Money talks. Their customers in the East have doubtless made it clear that they would prefer to keep their cash safe in a London bank rather than one based within reach of the government in Beijing.
This may be true. But does where a bank situates its headquarters affect the security of your money if it is held in a branch in another country?
Less than 1% of bank deposits are held in cash in branches.
I'd be surprised if it was anywhere near 1%.
I couldn't be arsed to check the actual so went for a generic one that made the point - @flightpath01 's view was unfounded
It would be amusing to dig out the Scottish threads from a couple of years ago to see how most of the most fervent Leavers thought RUK should act if Scotland voted for independence.
Indeed. The echoes are endless. The Nats maintained that rUK would bend over backwards to keep things nice with Scotland. Oh how we laughed. Now many of the same people maintain that the EU would bend over backwards to be nice to the UK after Brexit. Like the Nats they fervently maintain they would because it is in their own interests to do so.
The reality is that anyone who does not admit that a Leave vote will cause at least 2 years of uncertainty as the Article 50 notice winds down, that the extent, terms and cost of our access to the Single market after that date is not within our own grasp and dependent on the views of others and that there are serious financial and economic risks in this is just not being honest.
It is perfectly proper to argue that it is more likely than not that the final outcome of these negotiations will be at least as favourable as remaining in the EU but it is dishonest to pretend there will not be adverse consequences as well as benefits.
Well at least some of us were and are in favour of Scottish Independence as a positive development and would certainly have opposed any retaliation or bad faith dealings by the rUK.
And some of us weren't Richard. And I think your view was very much in the minority, at least on here. Thank you for the generosity of spirit it shows though.
This is why I have always said this is a finely balanced and difficult decision. There is no easy or obvious answer, there are significant risks and problems with both staying in and coming out. For the reasons I have bored everyone to death with I think the balance of risks favours Leave. But it is close.
What is already evident is that these real issues will barely feature in the public debate except in the most distorted and dishonest form. This is going to make the argument and counter argument in Scotland look like a classic application of the Socratic method.
No, the law then would be that Eurostar are forbidden from screening passengers by French law (as they are now) and are penalised for not screening passengers by the British which means unless the French fold (and why would they if they are choosing to shift the migrants on to us) that we are effectively left with the choice of close Eurostar or accept unlimited asylum seekers (as we were doing 15 years ago).
More scare mongering. The political pressure from the UK to prosecute Eurostar, even if it meant the company being forced to stop operating, would be immense. So in the end it would come back to a decision by the UK government and with the way the migrant crisis is now viewed no government that refused to enforce existing UK law to prevent migration would last more than 5 minutes.
Stop repeating Cameron's lies and admit this is just unfounded scare mongering.
It's not a lie, it is a problem that existed in real life within my memory. It is a lie to say that problem could not return.
Well the French clearly don't agree with you.
Because the French government of today clearly must inevitably represent the views of all French governments of the future. I mean it looks like they're going to be re-elected by a landslide ... oh wait, no they're not. *rolleyes*
The FT is leading tomorrow with a story that HSBC is going to stay in London. That's an important story if it's true.
Money talks. Their customers in the East have doubtless made it clear that they would prefer to keep their cash safe in a London bank rather than one based within reach of the government in Beijing.
This may be true. But does where a bank situates its headquarters affect the security of your money if it is held in a branch in another country?
Less than 1% of bank deposits are held in cash in branches.
I'd be surprised if it was anywhere near 1%.
Well I was not thinking about strictly cash actually held in branches. I was thinking about the deposits in bank accounts in branches all over the world. Does where a bank is headquartered affect your ability to access your funds?
Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
Their message is that Cameron is a liar.
But Leave won't win by socking it to Cameron.
They won't win just by doing that, but damaging REMAIN's supposed USP and Great Salesman, Dave "The Plan" Cameron, is an important part of the job.
Weirdly, he seems intent on helping them, all by himself.
The key swing electorate are Tories. 90%+ plus think he walks on water.
Even if that drops a bit over this (and it hasn't much in 6 years) there are many loyal Tories who will be turned off by it who'd otherwise be for Leave.
Leave should attack the EU and the fact it's not serious about reform.
Whatever happens in the referendum, I want Cameron gone the day after. He's a contemptible liar. And on the most serious of issues.
I genuinely thought more of him. This shit is just.... eeeeurgh. Go away, you girning, ham faced twatling. Send your sons to Eton, now you've done pretendy state schooling. What a dose he is.
Fair enough. I just want to win the referendum.
Personally, I couldn't care less why someone votes Leave as long as 50%+ turn out and do vote Leave on the day itself. Any tactic or strategy that maximises the chances of that is what I'm interested in.
I know my party and socking it to Cameron - even if it makes some feel good - will be more likely to harm the cause rather than help it.
I'm not a Tory. Never have been, never will be. I've never joined a political party.
I genially despise politicians, of all stripes (as I am sure they despise journalists like me). However I had a certain regard for Cameron, after I initially and wrongly dismissed him as a gaylording ponceyboots. But I don't see how he comes back from this.
He has alienated too many. He has blatantly lied to his own party on an issue where he knows they are highly informed - the EU. It's repulsive. He will be the Tory Blair. An election winner who is nonetheless reviled. Good. He deserves it for that "deal", all by itself.
We used to joke about Cameron coming back from Europe, with a worthless piece of paper in his hand, a la Chamberlain.
Never thought he'd actually do it.
To be fair, Chamberlains was better. At least it had a signature on it even if it was totally crap.
No, the law then would be that Eurostar are forbidden from screening passengers by French law (as they are now) and are penalised for not screening passengers by the British which means unless the French fold (and why would they if they are choosing to shift the migrants on to us) that we are effectively left with the choice of close Eurostar or accept unlimited asylum seekers (as we were doing 15 years ago).
More scare mongering. The political pressure from the UK to prosecute Eurostar, even if it meant the company being forced to stop operating, would be immense. So in the end it would come back to a decision by the UK government and with the way the migrant crisis is now viewed no government that refused to enforce existing UK law to prevent migration would last more than 5 minutes.
Stop repeating Cameron's lies and admit this is just unfounded scare mongering.
It's not a lie, it is a problem that existed in real life within my memory. It is a lie to say that problem could not return.
Of course it's a lie, everyone confirms it's a lie. As to speculation of past historical problems returning, well communism is a past problem ,should we be worried about a communist revolution in Britain any moment now?
"It is understood that Downing Street has been taken aback by the furious reception given to the deal which – while always limited – they had deemed creditable for Mr Cameron’s ‘wins’ on child benefits, the end of ‘ever closer union’ and the advent of a ‘red card’ system to block EU laws."
Explains the air of Desperation from REMAIN, today.
We used to joke about Cameron coming back from Europe, with a worthless piece of paper in his hand, a la Chamberlain.
Never thought he'd actually do it.
To be fair to Chamberlain, most people believed - at that point - Hitler was still a normal statesman who could be relied on to keep his word. It is only with hindsight that the view that it was a worthless piece of paper has set in.
Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
Their message is that Cameron is a liar.
But Leave won't win by socking it to Cameron.
They won't win just by doing that, but damaging REMAIN's supposed USP and Great Salesman, Dave "The Plan" Cameron, is an important part of the job.
Weirdly, he seems intent on helping them, all by himself.
The key swing electorate are Tories. 90%+ plus think he walks on water.
Even if that drops a bit over this (and it hasn't much in 6 years) there are many loyal Tories who will be turned off by it who'd otherwise be for Leave.
Leave should attack the EU and the fact it's not serious about reform.
Whatever happens in the referendum, I want Cameron gone the day after. He's a contemptible liar. And on the most serious of issues.
I genuinely thought more of him. This shit is just.... eeeeurgh. Go away, you girning, ham faced twatling. Send your sons to Eton, now you've done pretendy state schooling. What a dose he is.
Fair enough. I just want to win the referendum.
Personally, I couldn't care less why someone votes Leave as long as 50%+ turn out and do vote Leave on the day itself. Any tactic or strategy that maximises the chances of that is what I'm interested in.
I know my party and socking it to Cameron - even if it makes some feel good - will be more likely to harm the cause rather than help it.
The trouble is as we see from SeanT's vulgar hysteria, all the referendum is about from one wing is for the Right to gain some revenge and hegemony. The fact that the exit destination is in no way any real difference from where we would be after the renegotiations probably suits them. Opposition to the EU itself has just descended into an alternative way to be nasty to dark skinned immigrants. Cameron is planning to leave sometime in 2019ish anyway so of course this is why we see the attacks on his surrogate, Osborne. Quite why a few thick tory backbenchers think its clever to imitate Corbynism is a bit of a mystery.
That post is a bit of a butcher's job but, for the record, I think Cameron has been an asset to the Conservative Party and I've always been a big fan of the Big Society (great idea, poorly executed) and his domestic reform programme. I have disliked his new Labour-lite social policy and content-free euroscepticism.
If London, Scotland and Northern Ireland all vote 60/40 in favour of Remain, can Leave still win without receiving unrealistic support in the rest of the UK?
This spreadsheet shows it could still be very close without any of the other regions voting more than 54% Leave and mostly between 50% and 53%. With the values I've inputted Remain is only ahead by 50.65% to 49.35%.
Conclusion: Remain can't assume a comfortable victory simply because they may win a 60/40 margin in London, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
We close Eurostar then. If they're unable or unwilling to screen passengers, their business will no longer be permitted to operate. Any airline repeatedly flying planeloads of illegal immigrants into Heathrow would face the same consequences.
Do you have any idea how much damage that would do to UK businesses?
Yes. And the pressure on Eurotunnel and Eurostar from those businesses to comply, and improve security and screening would be immense. This isn't particularly difficult.
I'm not someone for whom the referendum is the most important electoral event of a generation, those who are, how will you feel, say after all of Cameron's lies, Remain polls 65% in the referendum?
Loathe him? Accept the will of the public, or continue to fight the good fight?
Of course they could, but I find it a lot less likely. Once treaties start to get ripped up you're opening Pandora's box and Le Touquet is very unpopular in large parts of France.
No one is ripping up any treaties. If we do leave it will be under the terms of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which makes allowances and sets out the procedure for exactly such an event.
Just as Le Touquet has exit procedures too ...
It does. But no one who can actually do anything about them is talking about invoking them. Indeed the French are quite openly saying Cameron is talking rubbish.
Your desperate clinging to this argument has been very sad. It involves the French revoking treaties which are very much in their own interests, companies deciding to break the law and risk being prosecuted by the British and the British government then deciding to ignore the law and just let tunnel operators let the migrants flow.
It is so ludicrous that it just makes both Cameron and you look infantile and dishonest.
The FT is leading tomorrow with a story that HSBC is going to stay in London. That's an important story if it's true.
Money talks. Their customers in the East have doubtless made it clear that they would prefer to keep their cash safe in a London bank rather than one based within reach of the government in Beijing.
This may be true. But does where a bank situates its headquarters affect the security of your money if it is held in a branch in another country?
Less than 1% of bank deposits are held in cash in branches.
I'd be surprised if it was anywhere near 1%.
Well I was not thinking about strictly cash actually held in branches. I was thinking about the deposits in bank accounts in branches all over the world. Does where a bank is headquartered affect your ability to access your funds?
Technically your loan is made to the legal entity that you deposit it with.
But it would be interesting to see a multinational bank try to repudiate obligations to depositors because an individual subsidiary had been nationalised.
Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
No the PM has said that if we didn't have the border at Calais then the French would simply waive them onto our soil. Once a refugee is on our soil they're nigh on impossible to remove as the rest of Europe have found out so we would end up with camps in our country rather than France.
All of which is true. The fact you find it an inconvenient truth doesn't mean it shouldn't be said.
Save that they are not refugees are they? France is a safe country. We are not talking about camps of Huguenots, are we?
I don't understand
It doesn't matter one jot if France is a safe country or not, once on British soil they can claim asylum from our government and then that is that.
Furthermore since (unlike with air travel) there is no penalty for SCNF if an illegal immigrant travels to the UK from France this was a major problem just over a decade ago and easily could be again.
If they get kept in secure detention like you proposed then that is EXACTLY what Cameron said. So Cameron is a liar because what Cameron said is true? Go figure.
Secure detention is quite different from a shanty town in the middle of Kent.
My understanding is that if a person does not claim asylum in the first safe country he reaches, any other state they travel to is not obliged to consider their asylum claim. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
At any event, I think the government should simply make this the legal position. We will not entertain any asylum claims from anyone who has travelled here from Europe. Or from any other safe countries. If they want to emigrate here legally, they can get in the queue and make their case like anyone else.
The practical difficulty is deportation, and not just because of the repetitive appeals. Deporting people back to Syria, Eritrea or Afghanistan is not easy. Indeed even deportation to Morocco is difficult.
My preferred plan is to offshore detention. Sierra Leone would be a good bet. If detainees do escape then it is not too much of a problem, as they would have to start again. It would provide employment in SL and they owe us a few favours!
A strange liberal democrat policy to 'detain' people who are migrants/ refugees from one country in a 3rd party country - and one as inhospitable as possible. This may or may not be a good, indeed genius idea, its debatable - but its a strange LD policy nevertheless.
"It is understood that Downing Street has been taken aback by the furious reception given to the deal which – while always limited – they had deemed creditable for Mr Cameron’s ‘wins’ on child benefits, the end of ‘ever closer union’ and the advent of a ‘red card’ system to block EU laws."
Explains the air of Desperation from REMAIN, today.
Just an astonishing misjudgement from a politician who has got most things right for 10 years. I am genuinely baffled as to how he got himself in this position.
The FT is leading tomorrow with a story that HSBC is going to stay in London. That's an important story if it's true.
Money talks. Their customers in the East have doubtless made it clear that they would prefer to keep their cash safe in a London bank rather than one based within reach of the government in Beijing.
This may be true. But does where a bank situates its headquarters affect the security of your money if it is held in a branch in another country?
Less than 1% of bank deposits are held in cash in branches.
I'd be surprised if it was anywhere near 1%.
Well I was not thinking about strictly cash actually held in branches. I was thinking about the deposits in bank accounts in branches all over the world. Does where a bank is headquartered affect your ability to access your funds?
I suspect that the FT staying in London rather than moving its HQ to Hong Kong has more to do with the China meltdown and the need for retrenchment rather than any real confidence in London.
Would be intersting to see Cameron's poll numbers with tory supporters after the pathetic EU deal,see if it's moved from his high satisfaction percentages.
No, the law then would be that Eurostar are forbidden from screening passengers by French law (as they are now) and are penalised for not screening passengers by the British which means unless the French fold (and why would they if they are choosing to shift the migrants on to us) that we are effectively left with the choice of close Eurostar or accept unlimited asylum seekers (as we were doing 15 years ago).
More scare mongering. The political pressure from the UK to prosecute Eurostar, even if it meant the company being forced to stop operating, would be immense. So in the end it would come back to a decision by the UK government and with the way the migrant crisis is now viewed no government that refused to enforce existing UK law to prevent migration would last more than 5 minutes.
Stop repeating Cameron's lies and admit this is just unfounded scare mongering.
It's not a lie, it is a problem that existed in real life within my memory. It is a lie to say that problem could not return.
Of course it's a lie, everyone confirms it's a lie. As to speculation of past historical problems returning, well communism is a past problem ,should we be worried about a communist revolution in Britain any moment now?
Well we have a Trot and a Stalinist as leader of the opposition and his number one supporter so no there must be no possibility of a return of communism being an issue here ...
Oh and just because every Leaver here says it is a lie does not make it a lie. This is a real issue that really existed 15 years ago PRIOR to the migration crisis that has engulfed Europe now. The idea that the French wouldn't even contemplate revoking their treaty at the same time as we are revoking our is the only lie in this thread.
Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
Their message is that Cameron is a liar.
But Leave won't win by socking it to Cameron.
They won't win just by doing that, but damaging REMAIN's supposed USP and Great Salesman, Dave "The Plan" Cameron, is an important part of the job.
Weirdly, he seems intent on helping them, all by himself.
The key swing electorate are Tories. 90%+ plus think he walks on water.
Even if that drops a bit over this (and it hasn't much in 6 years) there are many loyal Tories who will be turned off by it who'd otherwise be for Leave.
Leave should attack the EU and the fact it's not serious about reform.
Whatever happens in the referendum, I want Cameron gone the day after. He's a contemptible liar. And on the most serious of issues.
I genuinely thought more of him. This shit is just.... eeeeurgh. Go away, you girning, ham faced twatling. Send your sons to Eton, now you've done pretendy state schooling. What a dose he is.
Fair enough. I just want to win the referendum.
Personally, I couldn't care less why someone votes Leave as long as 50%+ turn out and do vote Leave on the day itself. Any tactic or strategy that maximises the chances of that is what I'm interested in.
I know my party and socking it to Cameron - even if it makes some feel good - will be more likely to harm the cause rather than help it.
The trouble is as we see from SeanT's vulgar hysteria, all the referendum is about from one wing is for the Right to gain some revenge and hegemony. The fact that the exit destination is in no way any real difference from where we would be after the renegotiations probably suits them. Opposition to the EU itself has just descended into an alternative way to be nasty to dark skinned immigrants. Cameron is planning to leave sometime in 2019ish anyway so of course this is why we see the attacks on his surrogate, Osborne. Quite why a few thick tory backbenchers think its clever to imitate Corbynism is a bit of a mystery.
'Anyone who wants to leave the EU is a racist'. This is laughable and desperate stuff.
"It is understood that Downing Street has been taken aback by the furious reception given to the deal which – while always limited – they had deemed creditable for Mr Cameron’s ‘wins’ on child benefits, the end of ‘ever closer union’ and the advent of a ‘red card’ system to block EU laws."
Explains the air of Desperation from REMAIN, today.
Has Liam Fox really been all over the news today claiming "there is no link between brexit and borders"?
is that really the outers message of the day?
No the PM has said that if we didn't have the border at Calais then the French would simply waive them onto our soil. Once a refugee is on our soil they're nigh on impossible to remove as the rest of Europe have found out so we would end up with camps in our country rather than France.
All of which is true. The fact you find it an inconvenient truth doesn't mean it shouldn't be said.
Save that they are not refugees are they? France is a safe country. We are not talking about camps of Huguenots, are we?
I don't understand
It doesn't matter one jot if France is a safe country or not, once on British soil they can claim asylum from our government and then that is that.
Furthermore since (unlike with air travel) there is no penalty for SCNF if an illegal immigrant travels to the UK from France this was a major problem just over a decade ago and easily could be again.
If they get kept in secure detention like you proposed then that is EXACTLY what Cameron said. So Cameron is a liar because what Cameron said is true? Go figure.
Secure detention is quite different from a shanty town in the
The practical difficulty is deportation, and not just because of the repetitive appeals. Deporting people back to Syria, Eritrea or Afghanistan is not easy. Indeed even deportation to Morocco is difficult.
My preferred plan is to offshore detention. Sierra Leone would be a good bet. If detainees do escape then it is not too much of a problem, as they would have to start again. It would provide employment in SL and they owe us a few favours!
A strange liberal democrat policy to 'detain' people who are migrants/ refugees from one country in a 3rd party country - and one as inhospitable as possible. This may or may not be a good, indeed genius idea, its debatable - but its a strange LD policy nevertheless.
I do not think that the LD policy on such things is in tune with my own!
Comments
You are simply repeating and trying to justify Cameron's lies and to be honest it destroys any credibility you might have. It reveals the paucity of any other Pro-EU arguments you might have.
We might stop Bastards like this coming here doing harm to our citizens.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3280805/Slovakian-man-jailed-20-years-raping-woman-18-battered-viciously-stone-life-saved-hood-headscarf.html
It would be very easy for the French government to turn around and terminate that Treaty while we are terminating the EU Treaties.
I said:
Always interesting. It seems to me that insurance rates like that indicate that there is considerable uncertainty about the value of "investment grade" bank debt which is 2008 all over again. As you say there seems to be a link to Deutsche Bank in particular as their stock has fallen a long way.
If we got to the point that the Sovereigns had to recapitalise the Banks once again I think there would be real issues of their solvency, especially for those that find it difficult to print. The collapse of the flow of easy credit from the Oil exporters' surpluses may also reduce liquidity at a difficult time.
The sovereigns won't be bailing out the banks again. Even the powers that be can see that the funds are simply not there for that. And look at the bail in laws that were introduced on the 1st January this year. The events in Cyprus were a dry run to see how the public would react to a haircut on their deposits. In this climate capital simply has to 'get off the grid'. The authorities wish to outlaw cash, in order to get their hands on every last penny of tax revenue they can, as well as to weaken the zero lower bound theory of interest rates....witness Japan going negative with deposits at the central bank last week, to join the EU, Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland. Even Deutsche Bank is screaming that negative interest rates are doing untold damage, and merely helping to propogate and entrench deflation, rather than stop it as ivory tower economics suggests. And getting off the grid means getting away from property. It wasn't mentioned in the mainstream media but prime central London property crashed 12% in a month after Osborne's property tax raid in the last budget, which is completely self defeating as a whole slug of tax revenue of those high earners in London spending on luxuries raising VAT revenue has been lost.
There have been ominous moves in the junk debt markets, I think that quite a few of the commodity conglomerates are going to go bust down the road such as Glencore. Much of their debt is in USD, which will add extra fuel to the USD rally in due course. I'm looking at the $25 as strong support for oil in the medium term, and think we'll get a corrective rally, but it should only be that. It took oil up at $147 in June 2008 to encourage all the investment in alterative energy sources. The days of oil as black gold are long since over, but an awful lot of malinvestment has taken place based on oil being permanently above $100. The market has a way of rendering the assumptions of the majority null and void, as has been the case here.
None of these measures are particularly sensible but the idea that Britain would be uniquely at risk of some French unilateral action and that there would be no adverse consequences for France or indeed pressures from other European countries on her is a bit fanciful.
More to the point, if this is what Cameron thinks the French might do, why the hell should I vote to Remain in a union which thinks like this of a neighbour? How can I trust the good faith of a country which won't stick by a treaty it has signed (according to Cameron) given that Cameron's deal depends on us believing in the good faith of France and 26 other countries?
Personally, I couldn't care less why someone votes Leave as long as 50%+ turn out and do vote Leave on the day itself. Any tactic or strategy that maximises the chances of that is what I'm interested in.
I know my party and socking it to Cameron - even if it makes some feel good - will be more likely to harm the cause rather than help it.
If the French wave illegals through to the UK, then the result will be that rail and ferry services will be suspended and the French will have tens of thousands of illegals across the Pas de Calais.
Basically you are just repeating lies.
Notice time France need to give under Le Touquet Treaty: 2 years.
Yes of course we could close the Chunnel but that would cut of our land border from the entire continent not just France, France would only lose its land border with us.
As for why trust France, because the point is that France is honouring its treaty now but just as we are honouring our treaties that make us part of the EU. If we vote to start leaving treaties what is to prevent France from following OUR EXAMPLE and doing the same and vote to leave one with us?
defends against domestic and foreign threat
enforces contracts and property rights
I think we're in agreement about that.
I don't think there's any contradiction between Libertarianism and border controls that are genuinely intended to protect citizens from threat, just as an army does. I think it's a different matter if the border controls are used to, say, prevent people from entering the country who might work for a lower wage than people already there. (I'm not saying that should or shouldn't be done. I'm just saying it's not consistent with Libertarianism.)
As I say, I'm not a Libertarian in practice and as it happens I would like the state to maintain the primacy of the English language and a secular society, by controlling the border if necessary. And since we have an extensive welfare state, we had better think about access to that also. (I think a pure Libertarian would have nothing to do with a welfare state but would also tell me where to stick my English language chauvinism.)
Remain out of loyalty .Look at the Daily Mail comments under the Calais story,up to almost 6000 comments and only a handful of support for him. I have never seen such anger and that is saying something for the DM commentariat. At the same time he is so tying himself to the EU mast that non- Conservatives will soon realise that he will have to go immediately if he loses the Referendum.That is a potential game changer for left wing voters who may not care that much either way on the EU issue.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/29/-sp-untold-story-culture-of-shame-ruzwana-bashir
My understanding is that if a person does not claim asylum in the first safe country he reaches, any other state they travel to is not obliged to consider their asylum claim. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
At any event, I think the government should simply make this the legal position. We will not entertain any asylum claims from anyone who has travelled here from Europe. Or from any other safe countries. If they want to emigrate here legally, they can get in the queue and make their case like anyone else.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/696814262757539840
5 trillion locusts vs death of every 1st born.
It's a slam dunk for Remain.
France: We won't move the border
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CauWVi7WwAAocj-.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalis_in_the_United_Kingdom
They are called Embassies. Problem is these people have no intention of going there as they would not stand a hope in hells chance of being considered legitimate and issued with a visa. Hence Calais camp of course.
The primary role of an Englishman and England should be to get up the nose of the French.
The reality is that anyone who does not admit that a Leave vote will cause at least 2 years of uncertainty as the Article 50 notice winds down, that the extent, terms and cost of our access to the Single market after that date is not within our own grasp and dependent on the views of others and that there are serious financial and economic risks in this is just not being honest.
It is perfectly proper to argue that it is more likely than not that the final outcome of these negotiations will be at least as favourable as remaining in the EU but it is dishonest to pretend there will not be adverse consequences as well as benefits.
You have mentioned a few times your guide to international cock ups, could you repost that I seem to have missed it and I am sure I can put it to good use . Thanks.
Stop repeating Cameron's lies and admit this is just unfounded scare mongering.
Trump 31 -2
Rubio 17 +1
Cruz 14 0
Kasich 10 -1
Bush 7 0
The exact opposite of what most would expect.
My preferred plan is to offshore detention. Sierra Leone would be a good bet. If detainees do escape then it is not too much of a problem, as they would have to start again. It would provide employment in SL and they owe us a few favours!
I can imagine Cameron saying: "Always trust the french to backstab you."
But it does basically confirm that Cameron has been talking utter uninformed bollocks.
Cameron is planning to leave sometime in 2019ish anyway so of course this is why we see the attacks on his surrogate, Osborne.
Quite why a few thick tory backbenchers think its clever to imitate Corbynism is a bit of a mystery.
They would, of course, have needed to follow the BoE rules and keep a very tight fiscal/monetary policy though.
We are not talking currency here.
We used to joke about Cameron coming back from Europe, with a worthless piece of paper in his hand, a la Chamberlain.
Never thought he'd actually do it.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/696819657622360065
This is why I have always said this is a finely balanced and difficult decision. There is no easy or obvious answer, there are significant risks and problems with both staying in and coming out. For the reasons I have bored everyone to death with I think the balance of risks favours Leave. But it is close.
What is already evident is that these real issues will barely feature in the public debate except in the most distorted and dishonest form. This is going to make the argument and counter argument in Scotland look like a classic application of the Socratic method.
https://twitter.com/MattGarrahan/status/696802182381903872
As to speculation of past historical problems returning, well communism is a past problem ,should we be worried about a communist revolution in Britain any moment now?
I have very little time for George Osborne.
Did SeanT say something about legacy?
If London, Scotland and Northern Ireland all vote 60/40 in favour of Remain, can Leave still win without receiving unrealistic support in the rest of the UK?
This spreadsheet shows it could still be very close without any of the other regions voting more than 54% Leave and mostly between 50% and 53%. With the values I've inputted Remain is only ahead by 50.65% to 49.35%.
Conclusion: Remain can't assume a comfortable victory simply because they may win a 60/40 margin in London, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CWkSqxoKbF7qqqeE49gt7j03OM9lcyPbJwcHLJaMjbE/edit#gid=0
Loathe him? Accept the will of the public, or continue to fight the good fight?
Your desperate clinging to this argument has been very sad. It involves the French revoking treaties which are very much in their own interests, companies deciding to break the law and risk being prosecuted by the British and the British government then deciding to ignore the law and just let tunnel operators let the migrants flow.
It is so ludicrous that it just makes both Cameron and you look infantile and dishonest.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/jeremy-hunt-vetoed-deal-to-end-junior-doctor-dispute-which-was-supported-by-the-nhss-own-negotiators-a6861606.html
The DoH say, of course that this story is completely untrue but I know which side the public will believe.
But it would be interesting to see a multinational bank try to repudiate obligations to depositors because an individual subsidiary had been nationalised.
This may or may not be a good, indeed genius idea, its debatable - but its a strange LD policy nevertheless.
I suppose it's a point of view.
Oh and just because every Leaver here says it is a lie does not make it a lie. This is a real issue that really existed 15 years ago PRIOR to the migration crisis that has engulfed Europe now. The idea that the French wouldn't even contemplate revoking their treaty at the same time as we are revoking our is the only lie in this thread.