politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Remember this cringe making TMay effort from GE17?

SPD leadership selfie after the conclusion of the coalition agreement. Note the position of Martin Schulz.
https://twitter.com/manuelaschwesig/status/961186489832038400

rcs1000 said:

So I fail to see how a situation like the Swiss-French border is such a problem.

You fail to see it because your whole position on Brexit depends on your failing to see it.

Charles said:

Roger said:

I didn't find that particularly excruciating. If you want excruciating from a Tory Prime Minister try this from the Granny of them all....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O184yGKknSQ

That didn’t seem excritiating at all. They seemed to be talking past each other.

The questioner was focused on the bearing the ship was on; Thatcher on where it was a danger to soldiers. Ultimately in a time of war you are going to have to delegate authority to the executive but it seems pretty thin case that she gave an order she didn’t think was justified (and given the sensitivity the “trust me” may have been the only one possible even if unsatisfying)

You have to remember the context. This was the first action in the conflict and 323 mainly sea cadets were killed. When we heard they had been killed outside the exclusione zone there was genuine shock and horror.This lady was the first to dent Mrs T's self confidence. Though I agree it isn't as obvious as it seemed at the time

TOPPING said:

rcs1000 said:

TOPPING said:

Presumably because we would have a different tariff environment.

Different tariff environment = opportunity to benefit by smuggling from one to the other

Opportunity to smuggle = criminal activity

Criminal activity = potential for undesirable groups to participate

Potential for undesirable groups to participate = 1970s

1970s = Troubles.

Switzerland has a (limited) FTA with China, while the EU does not. Yet smuggling between Switzerland and France is not a major (or even a minor) issue.

The EU's average external tariff is something like 2.7%. We're not - despite the dreams of some - going to meaningfully deviate from it. We're also unlikely to have more FTAs that the EU in the near future (indeed, I suspect we'll have quite a lot fewer for the next decade).

So I fail to see how a situation like the Swiss-French border is such a problem.

We are talking about an organisation that would take cows from one side of the border to the other repeatedly in order to qualify for Brussels' subsidies. If there is an opportunity, it will be exploited.

So we should decide the UKs future trade policy because of a few cows and a few minor smuggling issues. There are already major differences in tax rates.

Charles Grant on the latest state of play:

https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-theresa-may-cant-afford-red-lines/

Tissue_Price said:

Really interesting piece* from Freakonomics on the gender pay gap at Uber - despite the algorithms being gender-blind, there is an observed 7% gap in pay-per-hour.

http://freakonomics.com/podcast/what-can-uber-teach-us-about-the-gender-pay-gap/

TL;DR it's not discrimination per se:

20% is explained by choices about where and when to drive
30% is explained by additional returns to experience (men stick on Uber for longer, and do more hours per week as well)
50% is explained by driving speed!


* podcast, but with transcript - please can we consider getting one for Polling Matters?

We must be careful not to conflate explanation with exculpation. There is still a pay gap even if we know where it comes from. There is a tendency, especially in America, to stop at this point. Today's news sees Tesco's sex pay gap between store-based women and warehouse-based men. This is what the Ford dispute in the 1960s was about, and which led to the Equal Pay Act.

rcs1000 said:

TOPPING said:

rcs1000 said:

TOPPING said:

Presumably because we would have a different tariff environment.

Different tariff environment = opportunity to benefit by smuggling from one to the other

Opportunity to smuggle = criminal activity

Criminal activity = potential for undesirable groups to participate

Potential for undesirable groups to participate = 1970s

1970s = Troubles.

Switzerland has a (limited) FTA with China, while the EU does not. Yet smuggling between Switzerland and France is not a major (or even a minor) issue.

The EU's average external tariff is something like 2.7%. We're not - despite the dreams of some - going to meaningfully deviate from it. We're also unlikely to have more FTAs that the EU in the near future (indeed, I suspect we'll have quite a lot fewer for the next decade).

So I fail to see how a situation like the Swiss-French border is such a problem.

We are talking about an organisation that would take cows from one side of the border to the other repeatedly in order to qualify for Brussels' subsidies. If there is an opportunity, it will be exploited.

Will there be smuggling of booze and fags across the border to avoid duty? Yes.
Will it be a major issue? No.

You mean 'as there is today' (along with fuel)?

Am I the only one finding the LibDems clutching on to Anna Soubry as a possible MP - leader even! - a hoot? She may be the applying copious amounts of Essence of Anti-Brexit, but in many other aspects of policy she would strain their cohesion to bursting point.

And they haven't always been so kindly disposed to her. Being a Remainer scrubs away all other failings?

CarlottaVance said:

rcs1000 said:

TOPPING said:

rcs1000 said:

TOPPING said:

Presumably because we would have a different tariff environment.

Different tariff environment = opportunity to benefit by smuggling from one to the other

Opportunity to smuggle = criminal activity

Criminal activity = potential for undesirable groups to participate

Potential for undesirable groups to participate = 1970s

1970s = Troubles.

Switzerland has a (limited) FTA with China, while the EU does not. Yet smuggling between Switzerland and France is not a major (or even a minor) issue.

The EU's average external tariff is something like 2.7%. We're not - despite the dreams of some - going to meaningfully deviate from it. We're also unlikely to have more FTAs that the EU in the near future (indeed, I suspect we'll have quite a lot fewer for the next decade).

So I fail to see how a situation like the Swiss-French border is such a problem.

We are talking about an organisation that would take cows from one side of the border to the other repeatedly in order to qualify for Brussels' subsidies. If there is an opportunity, it will be exploited.

Will there be smuggling of booze and fags across the border to avoid duty? Yes.
Will it be a major issue? No.

You mean 'as there is today' (along with fuel)?

Fair point

rcs1000 said:

TOPPING said:

rcs1000 said:

TOPPING said:

Presumably because we would have a different tariff environment.

Different tariff environment = opportunity to benefit by smuggling from one to the other

Opportunity to smuggle = criminal activity

Criminal activity = potential for undesirable groups to participate

Potential for undesirable groups to participate = 1970s

1970s = Troubles.

Switzerland has a (limited) FTA with China, while the EU does not. Yet smuggling between Switzerland and France is not a major (or even a minor) issue.

The EU's average external tariff is something like 2.7%. We're not - despite the dreams of some - going to meaningfully deviate from it. We're also unlikely to have more FTAs that the EU in the near future (indeed, I suspect we'll have quite a lot fewer for the next decade).

So I fail to see how a situation like the Swiss-French border is such a problem.

We are talking about an organisation that would take cows from one side of the border to the other repeatedly in order to qualify for Brussels' subsidies. If there is an opportunity, it will be exploited.

Firstly, the CAP doesn't work like that anymore.
Secondly, even if there was some simple way to exploit the subsidy system like that, I suspect it would be pretty easy to detect.

Will there be smuggling of booze and fags across the border to avoid duty? Yes.
Will it be a major issue? No.

Wasn't the IRA partly funded by a cross-border fuel smuggling scam using a farm with an underground fuel tank? It would be filled on one side from where the oil would flow downhill across the border, and then be collected and driven back round? Google "Slab Murphy" for the details.

rcs1000 said:

CarlottaVance said:

rcs1000 said:

TOPPING said:

rcs1000 said:

TOPPING said:

Presumably because we would have a different tariff environment.

Different tariff environment = opportunity to benefit by smuggling from one to the other

Opportunity to smuggle = criminal activity

Criminal activity = potential for undesirable groups to participate

Potential for undesirable groups to participate = 1970s

1970s = Troubles.

Switzerland has a (limited) FTA with China, while the EU does not. Yet smuggling between Switzerland and France is not a major (or even a minor) issue.

The EU's average external tariff is something like 2.7%. We're not - despite the dreams of some - going to meaningfully deviate from it. We're also unlikely to have more FTAs that the EU in the near future (indeed, I suspect we'll have quite a lot fewer for the next decade).

So I fail to see how a situation like the Swiss-French border is such a problem.

We are talking about an organisation that would take cows from one side of the border to the other repeatedly in order to qualify for Brussels' subsidies. If there is an opportunity, it will be exploited.

Will there be smuggling of booze and fags across the border to avoid duty? Yes.
Will it be a major issue? No.

You mean 'as there is today' (along with fuel)?

Fair point

Fuel to supply the boilers running 24-7 for the cash for ash jolly ?

MarqueeMark said:

kle4 said:

Headlined clip on the BBC of Justin Trudeau apparently talking about 'peoplekind' rather than 'mankind'. Surely if we want a less seemingly gendered term 'humankind' works better?

Any use of the three letters in the sequence "M-A-N" is clearly a always an intended slight against those defining themselves as the female of the species.

Next stop: Personufacturing. Because a MAN makes everything, huh?

Manu Factum = made by hand - so women don't have hands?

sarissa said:

MarqueeMark said:

kle4 said:

Headlined clip on the BBC of Justin Trudeau apparently talking about 'peoplekind' rather than 'mankind'. Surely if we want a less seemingly gendered term 'humankind' works better?

Any use of the three letters in the sequence "M-A-N" is clearly a always an intended slight against those defining themselves as the female of the species.

Next stop: Personufacturing. Because a MAN makes everything, huh?

Manu Factum = made by hand - so women don't have hands?

Although, it would be worth embracing the concept if certain people in the NW had to go watch PersonU.....

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

So I fail to see how a situation like the Swiss-French border is such a problem.

You fail to see it because your whole position on Brexit depends on your failing to see it.

We are not talking about the end of the Common Travel Area, passport checks on the train from Belfast to Dublin, and long queues to cross the border.

We're talking about a system that - just as on the France-Switzerland border - requires exporters to go to a website ahead of time to log their cargo. (Which, because there will be an FTA between the EU and the UK, will probably be a five minute job.) Now, is that a hassle? A little bit. Will it affect trade on the island? Sure, but only marginally. Will the average Northern Irish or Republic or Ireland resident notice the change? Probably not.

You could make the same argument about the average resident to justify King Herod's policies...

How would someone transporting freight from Clones to Cloverhill operate under the new regime?

Goods in transit through one country to another are common. Road deliveries go to Turkey, Middle East, all sorts of places where you cross through a country..

Your ability to highlight problems that are non existent is laudable.

rcs1000 said:

TOPPING said:

Presumably because we would have a different tariff environment.

Different tariff environment = opportunity to benefit by smuggling from one to the other

Opportunity to smuggle = criminal activity

Criminal activity = potential for undesirable groups to participate

Potential for undesirable groups to participate = 1970s

1970s = Troubles.

Switzerland has a (limited) FTA with China, while the EU does not. Yet smuggling between Switzerland and France is not a major (or even a minor) issue.

The EU's average external tariff is something like 2.7%. We're not - despite the dreams of some - going to meaningfully deviate from it. We're also unlikely to have more FTAs that the EU in the near future (indeed, I suspect we'll have quite a lot fewer for the next decade).

So I fail to see how a situation like the Swiss-French border is such a problem.

The Irish border will be COMPLETELY different from the Swiss-French one. The Swiss have always controlled their borders very firmly and in fact closed them during the Second World War. They separate people who clearly identify themselves as Swiss or French. Physically there are relatively few crossing points.

The Irish border is imposed on people, who in the neighbourbood mostly think it's an abomination and make no distinction between people on one side and the other. The Good Friday Agreement aims to make it ambiguous; the effect of Brexit is to make the border firmer than it has ever been before. Physically the border follows ditches in a line drawn by Edward Carson on a map one evening after the the First World War. The sensible thing would be to put any border controls at the Irish Sea - it's a hard physical border - but that runs against the political realities in Northern Ireland.

I mentioned Transnistria tongue-in-cheek but the Northern Irish setup has more than a passing resemblance to that tinpot territory. Brexit will make the resemblance stronger.

philiph said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

So I fail to see how a situation like the Swiss-French border is such a problem.

You fail to see it because your whole position on Brexit depends on your failing to see it.

We are not talking about the end of the Common Travel Area, passport checks on the train from Belfast to Dublin, and long queues to cross the border.

We're talking about a system that - just as on the France-Switzerland border - requires exporters to go to a website ahead of time to log their cargo. (Which, because there will be an FTA between the EU and the UK, will probably be a five minute job.) Now, is that a hassle? A little bit. Will it affect trade on the island? Sure, but only marginally. Will the average Northern Irish or Republic or Ireland resident notice the change? Probably not.

You could make the same argument about the average resident to justify King Herod's policies...

How would someone transporting freight from Clones to Cloverhill operate under the new regime?

Goods in transit through one country to another are common. Road deliveries go to Turkey, Middle East, all sorts of places where you cross through a country..

Your ability to highlight problems that are non existent is laudable.

In 1976, I went with a long-distance lorry driver through West Germany, East Germany, Czechoslavakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Greece - and back.

If we can arrange trade through the Iron Curtain at the height of the Cold War, I think we can cope.....

This 6 counties/Republic border control by Snapchat or whatever the fuck they are going to do is going to have the piss taken mightily by criminals and opportunists, there's no doubt about that. But it's not even going to be in the top 50 post-Brexit issues.

If Rashid gets Maxwell we have a game. If he doesn't we're stuffed.

Mr Dancer,

"It may also explain why homosexuality is more common in men than women."

Recent work suggests that women tend to have more bisexual members of their fraternity. Men, as you say, are more bimodal - one or t'other. However, now we're straying into sociology, a lesser breed of science.

For those interested, the Americans seem very happy to publish their research on-line at an early stage. They tend to pay lip-service to the sociologists eg, "Brain sex differences uniquely affect biochemical processes, may contribute to susceptibility to specific diseases, and may influence specific behaviours. Such biological differences should never be used to justify discrimination or sexism."

Review articles are available, and for them you only need a general background in science.

Can I recommend Wu et al (2009) Estrogen masculinizes Neural Pathways and Sex-Specific Behaviours. Cell, Volume 139, issue 1, 2 October. pps 61 - 72 for a more specific article, as this has many citations.

williamglenn said:

John_M said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

So I fail to see how a situation like the Swiss-French border is such a problem.

You fail to see it because your whole position on Brexit depends on your failing to see it.

We are not talking about the end of the Common Travel Area, passport checks on the train from Belfast to Dublin, and long queues to cross the border.

We're talking about a system that - just as on the France-Switzerland border - requires exporters to go to a website ahead of time to log their cargo. (Which, because there will be an FTA between the EU and the UK, will probably be a five minute job.) Now, is that a hassle? A little bit. Will it affect trade on the island? Sure, but only marginally. Will the average Northern Irish or Republic or Ireland resident notice the change? Probably not.

You could make the same argument about the average resident to justify King Herod's policies...

How would someone transporting freight from Clones to Cloverhill operate under the new regime?

Drive via Redhills and Scotshouse? It's 2km longer.

And the people who live alongside that route will just have to lump the fact that they now have lorries driving past their door?

That is an issue for the Republic of Ireland, surely? Perhaps a bypass or two might be in order.

FF43 said:

rcs1000 said:

TOPPING said:

Presumably because we would have a different tariff environment.

Different tariff environment = opportunity to benefit by smuggling from one to the other

Opportunity to smuggle = criminal activity

Criminal activity = potential for undesirable groups to participate

Potential for undesirable groups to participate = 1970s

1970s = Troubles.

Switzerland has a (limited) FTA with China, while the EU does not. Yet smuggling between Switzerland and France is not a major (or even a minor) issue.

The EU's average external tariff is something like 2.7%. We're not - despite the dreams of some - going to meaningfully deviate from it. We're also unlikely to have more FTAs that the EU in the near future (indeed, I suspect we'll have quite a lot fewer for the next decade).

So I fail to see how a situation like the Swiss-French border is such a problem.

The Irish border will be COMPLETELY different from the Swiss-French one. The Swiss have always controlled their borders very firmly and in fact closed them during the Second World War. They separate people who clearly identify themselves as Swiss or French. Physically there are relatively few crossing points.

The Irish border is imposed on people, who in the neighbourbood mostly think it's an abomination and make no distinction between people on one side and the other. The Good Friday Agreement aims to make it ambiguous; the effect of Brexit is to make the border firmer than it has ever been before. Physically the border follows ditches in a line drawn by Edward Carson on a map one evening after the the First World War. The sensible thing would be to put any border controls at the Irish Sea - it's a hard physical border - but that runs against the political realities in Northern Ireland.

I mentioned Transnistria tongue-in-cheek but the Northern Irish setup has more than a passing resemblance to that tinpot territory. Brexit will make the resemblance stronger.

I've crossed from France to Switzerland unchecked many times.
Germany to Switzerland is also not an onerous crossing.
Italy to Switzerland? Even that can be done in less than a day without 24 hours administrative preparation.
Never done Austria or Lichtenstein to Switzerland.

williamglenn said:

philiph said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

So I fail to see how a situation like the Swiss-French border is such a problem.

You fail to see it because your whole position on Brexit depends on your failing to see it.

We are not talking about the end of the Common Travel Area, passport checks on the train from Belfast to Dublin, and long queues to cross the border.

We're talking about a system that - just as on the France-Switzerland border - requires exporters to go to a website ahead of time to log their cargo. (Which, because there will be an FTA between the EU and the UK, will probably be a five minute job.) Now, is that a hassle? A little bit. Will it affect trade on the island? Sure, but only marginally. Will the average Northern Irish or Republic or Ireland resident notice the change? Probably not.

You could make the same argument about the average resident to justify King Herod's policies...

How would someone transporting freight from Clones to Cloverhill operate under the new regime?

Goods in transit through one country to another are common. Road deliveries go to Turkey, Middle East, all sorts of places where you cross through a country..

Your ability to highlight problems that are non existent is laudable.

We're not talking about 'all sorts of places'; we're talking about this place. How would it work on the ground?

Easily?

philiph said:

FF43 said:

rcs1000 said:

TOPPING said:

Presumably because we would have a different tariff environment.

Different tariff environment = opportunity to benefit by smuggling from one to the other

Opportunity to smuggle = criminal activity

Criminal activity = potential for undesirable groups to participate

Potential for undesirable groups to participate = 1970s

1970s = Troubles.

Switzerland has a (limited) FTA with China, while the EU does not. Yet smuggling between Switzerland and France is not a major (or even a minor) issue.

The EU's average external tariff is something like 2.7%. We're not - despite the dreams of some - going to meaningfully deviate from it. We're also unlikely to have more FTAs that the EU in the near future (indeed, I suspect we'll have quite a lot fewer for the next decade).

So I fail to see how a situation like the Swiss-French border is such a problem.

The Irish border will be COMPLETELY different from the Swiss-French one. The Swiss have always controlled their borders very firmly and in fact closed them during the Second World War. They separate people who clearly identify themselves as Swiss or French. Physically there are relatively few crossing points.

The Irish border is imposed on people, who in the neighbourbood mostly think it's an abomination and make no distinction between people on one side and the other. The Good Friday Agreement aims to make it ambiguous; the effect of Brexit is to make the border firmer than it has ever been before. Physically the border follows ditches in a line drawn by Edward Carson on a map one evening after the the First World War. The sensible thing would be to put any border controls at the Irish Sea - it's a hard physical border - but that runs against the political realities in Northern Ireland.

I mentioned Transnistria tongue-in-cheek but the Northern Irish setup has more than a passing resemblance to that tinpot territory. Brexit will make the resemblance stronger.

I've crossed from France to Switzerland unchecked many times.
Germany to Switzerland is also not an onerous crossing.
Italy to Switzerland? Even that can be done in less than a day without 24 hours administrative preparation.
Never done Austria or Lichtenstein to Switzerland.

Indeed. You are talking personal travel between the countries? Very easy thanks to the Freedom of Movement that comes with Switzerland's membership of Schengen. Ummm.

FF43 said:

philiph said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

So I fail to see how a situation like the Swiss-French border is such a problem.

You fail to see it because your whole position on Brexit depends on your failing to see it.

We are not talking about the end of the Common Travel Area, passport checks on the train from Belfast to Dublin, and long queues to cross the border.

We're talking about a system that - just as on the France-Switzerland border - requires exporters to go to a website ahead of time to log their cargo. (Which, because there will be an FTA between the EU and the UK, will probably be a five minute job.) Now, is that a hassle? A little bit. Will it affect trade on the island? Sure, but only marginally. Will the average Northern Irish or Republic or Ireland resident notice the change? Probably not.

You could make the same argument about the average resident to justify King Herod's policies...

How would someone transporting freight from Clones to Cloverhill operate under the new regime?

Goods in transit through one country to another are common. Road deliveries go to Turkey, Middle East, all sorts of places where you cross through a country..

Your ability to highlight problems that are non existent is laudable.

What are the trade levels by road across the Turkish eastern border and how do they compare with those across the Irish border now? I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that Irish cross-border trade is significantly higher than that between Sweden and Norway. Brexiteers point to that border as an ideal of frictionless trade, but maybe it's not as good as the Irish border now. And incidentally Norway and Sweden are both in the EU Single Market, unlike NI and RoI on proposed Brexit arrangements.

You can have Serbia if you like, lots of trucks cross Serbian borders seamlessly. It is a facet of existing international trade. You don't need to invent a whole new complex system or imagine impossibilities.

Sure you can design problems in, but that is a choice not a necessity.

People on here hand waving away the potential problems of the NI border I’m afraid are displaying cake and eat it ignorance Brexiting at its very worst.

williamglenn said:

John_M said:

williamglenn said:

John_M said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

So I fail to see how a situation like the Swiss-French border is such a problem.

You fail to see it because your whole position on Brexit depends on your failing to see it.

We are not talking about the end of the Common Travel Area, passport checks on the train from Belfast to Dublin, and long queues to cross the border.

We're talking about a system that - just as on the France-Switzerland border - requires exporters to go to a website ahead of time to log their cargo. (Which, because there will be an FTA between the EU and the UK, will probably be a five minute job.) Now, is that a hassle? A little bit. Will it affect trade on the island? Sure, but only marginally. Will the average Northern Irish or Republic or Ireland resident notice the change? Probably not.

You could make the same argument about the average resident to justify King Herod's policies...

How would someone transporting freight from Clones to Cloverhill operate under the new regime?

Drive via Redhills and Scotshouse? It's 2km longer.

And the people who live alongside that route will just have to lump the fact that they now have lorries driving past their door?

That is an issue for the Republic of Ireland, surely? Perhaps a bypass or two might be in order.

It won't be necessary, because they have the UK by the short and curlies and have already forced a concession that we will maintain full alignment with the single market and customs union if all else fails.

Then why did you bring it up? While I appreciate you're quite keen on the EU, there are much bigger fish to fry than the proverbial man in the Irish lorry wanting to ply their trade from Clones to Cloverhill.

El_Capitano said:

rcs1000 said:

We are not talking about the end of the Common Travel Area, passport checks on the train from Belfast to Dublin, and long queues to cross the border.

We're talking about a system that - just as on the France-Switzerland border - requires exporters to go to a website ahead of time to log their cargo. (Which, because there will be an FTA between the EU and the UK, will probably be a five minute job.)

Anyone who has recently done their self-assessment return will be deeply, deeply sceptical about any solution that involves the British government building a website.

The NHS IT system wasn't a good example.

FF43 said:

philiph said:

FF43 said:

rcs1000 said:

TOPPING said:

Presumably because we would have a different tariff environment.

Different tariff environment = opportunity to benefit by smuggling from one to the other

Opportunity to smuggle = criminal activity

Criminal activity = potential for undesirable groups to participate

Potential for undesirable groups to participate = 1970s

1970s = Troubles.

Switzerland has a (limited) FTA with China, while the EU does not. Yet smuggling between Switzerland and France is not a major (or even a minor) issue.

The EU's average external tariff is something like 2.7%. We're not - despite the dreams of some - going to meaningfully deviate from it. We're also unlikely to have more FTAs that the EU in the near future (indeed, I suspect we'll have quite a lot fewer for the next decade).

So I fail to see how a situation like the Swiss-French border is such a problem.

The Irish border will be COMPLETELY different from the Swiss-French one. The Swiss have always controlled their borders very firmly and in fact closed them during the Second World War. They separate people who clearly identify themselves as Swiss or French. Physically there are relatively few crossing points.

The Irish border is imposed on people, who in the neighbourbood mostly think it's an abomination and make no distinction between people on one side and the other. The Good Friday Agreement aims to make it ambiguous; the effect of Brexit is to make the border firmer than it has ever been before. Physically the border follows ditches in a line drawn by Edward Carson on a map one evening after the the First World War. The sensible thing would be to put any border controls at the Irish Sea - it's a hard physical border - but that runs against the political realities in Northern Ireland.

I mentioned Transnistria tongue-in-cheek but the Northern Irish setup has more than a passing resemblance to that tinpot territory. Brexit will make the resemblance stronger.

I've crossed from France to Switzerland unchecked many times.
Germany to Switzerland is also not an onerous crossing.
Italy to Switzerland? Even that can be done in less than a day without 24 hours administrative preparation.
Never done Austria or Lichtenstein to Switzerland.

Indeed. You are talking personal travel between the countries? Very easy thanks to the Freedom of Movement that comes with Switzerland's membership of Schengen. Ummm.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Titter......

https://twitter.com/BrianSpanner1/status/961202187866136576

rcs1000 said:

FF43 said:

rcs1000 said:

TOPPING said:

Presumably because we would have a different tariff environment.

Different tariff environment = opportunity to benefit by smuggling from one to the other

Opportunity to smuggle = criminal activity

Criminal activity = potential for undesirable groups to participate

Potential for undesirable groups to participate = 1970s

1970s = Troubles.

Switzerland has a (limited) FTA with China, while the EU does not. Yet smuggling between Switzerland and France is not a major (or even a minor) issue.

The EU's average external tariff is something like 2.7%. We're not - despite the dreams of some - going to meaningfully deviate from it. We're also unlikely to have more FTAs that the EU in the near future (indeed, I suspect we'll have quite a lot fewer for the next decade).

So I fail to see how a situation like the Swiss-French border is such a problem.

The Irish border will be COMPLETELY different from the Swiss-French one. The Swiss have always controlled their borders very firmly and in fact closed them during the Second World War. They separate people who clearly identify themselves as Swiss or French. Physically there are relatively few crossing points.

The Irish border is imposed on people, who in the neighbourbood mostly think it's an abomination and make no distinction between people on one side and the other. The Good Friday Agreement aims to make it ambiguous; the effect of Brexit is to make the border firmer than it has ever been before. Physically the border follows ditches in a line drawn by Edward Carson on a map one evening after the the First World War. The sensible thing would be to put any border controls at the Irish Sea - it's a hard physical border - but that runs against the political realities in Northern Ireland.

I mentioned Transnistria tongue-in-cheek but the Northern Irish setup has more than a passing resemblance to that tinpot territory. Brexit will make the resemblance stronger.

I'm sorry, are you on crack?

Have you been to Switzerland in the last decade? There is no separation of Swiss and other nationals at passport control. (And, indeed, passport control only exists for people coming in from outside Schengen.) The border posts are almost entirely unmanned, except to force people to buy the Swiss motorway pass.

I'm not on crack, I have lived in Switzerland for two years, specifically the French speaking part of it. And you didn't address the points I made - not that there is any requirement to do so, of course.

rcs1000 said:

FF43 said:

rcs1000 said:

TOPPING said:

Presumably because we would have a different tariff environment.

Different tariff environment = opportunity to benefit by smuggling from one to the other

Opportunity to smuggle = criminal activity

Criminal activity = potential for undesirable groups to participate

Potential for undesirable groups to participate = 1970s

1970s = Troubles.

Switzerland has a (limited) FTA with China, while the EU does not. Yet smuggling between Switzerland and France is not a major (or even a minor) issue.

The EU's average external tariff is something like 2.7%. We're not - despite the dreams of some - going to meaningfully deviate from it. We're also unlikely to have more FTAs that the EU in the near future (indeed, I suspect we'll have quite a lot fewer for the next decade).

So I fail to see how a situation like the Swiss-French border is such a problem.

The Irish border will be COMPLETELY different from the Swiss-French one. The Swiss have always controlled their borders very firmly and in fact closed them during the Second World War. They separate people who clearly identify themselves as Swiss or French. Physically there are relatively few crossing points.

The Irish border is imposed on people, who in the neighbourbood mostly think it's an abomination and make no distinction between people on one side and the other. The Good Friday Agreement aims to make it ambiguous; the effect of Brexit is to make the border firmer than it has ever been before. Physically the border follows ditches in a line drawn by Edward Carson on a map one evening after the the First World War. The sensible thing would be to put any border controls at the Irish Sea - it's a hard physical border - but that runs against the political realities in Northern Ireland.

I mentioned Transnistria tongue-in-cheek but the Northern Irish setup has more than a passing resemblance to that tinpot territory. Brexit will make the resemblance stronger.

I'm sorry, are you on crack?

Have you been to Switzerland in the last decade? There is no separation of Swiss and other nationals at passport control. (And, indeed, passport control only exists for people coming in from outside Schengen.) The border posts are almost entirely unmanned, except to force people to buy the Swiss motorway pass.

There things are not difficult, and are in place in loads of other places such as the world’s longest land border between the USA and Canada.

Where there’s a will there’s a way, but a lot of people don’t want to have the will.

CarlottaVance said:

Titter......

https://twitter.com/BrianSpanner1/status/961202187866136576

https://twitter.com/harrismonkey/status/960981230849323015

OldKingCole said:

El_Capitano said:

rcs1000 said:

We are not talking about the end of the Common Travel Area, passport checks on the train from Belfast to Dublin, and long queues to cross the border.

We're talking about a system that - just as on the France-Switzerland border - requires exporters to go to a website ahead of time to log their cargo. (Which, because there will be an FTA between the EU and the UK, will probably be a five minute job.)

Anyone who has recently done their self-assessment return will be deeply, deeply sceptical about any solution that involves the British government building a website.

The NHS IT system wasn't a good example.

Indeed. There are no good examples. Unfortunately there is a lot of hubris, because the Government now has the much-lauded Government Digital Service, which is terrific at building Silicon Valley-compliant responsive, accessible sites on which it's impossible to find anything.

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

If Rashid gets Maxwell we have a game. If he doesn't we're stuffed.

As it looked at the time, we were about 30 runs short.

Rashid should have had him. Controversial call but Roy should have done better. I think that's it.

Rashid did have him - just that Roy made it a bit harder for the umpires to admit.

welshowl said:

I'm sure Eamon De Valera sat there in 1920 odd and looked in horror at the map and said "Christ boys, we'll have to call this push for independence lark off, we might have a customs problem on the N54 in County Monaghan. I mean look it's all wiggly, so we're stuffed. That's it I'm off to the palace to submit to the Crown and live out my life as a happy subject of King George V and his Customs Union".

It would all be so much easier if we didn't have a modern, integrated economy...

Sandpit said:

There things are not difficult, and are in place in loads of other places such as the world’s longest land border between the USA and Canada.

Where there’s a will there’s a way, but a lot of people don’t want to have the will.

Why should the people living near the border have any will to find a way to impose further political separation upon themselves when they don't think there should be a border at all? The whole thing is an absurdity.

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

TGOHF said:

geoffw said:

TGOHF said:

geoffw said:

brendan16 said:

Scott_P said:

Brexiteer promotes Irish unification...

@PolhomeEditor: Tory Brexiteers Bernard Jenkin says “there is going to be a customs frontier at the points of entry between the European Union and United Kingdom”, but insists that won’t mean checks on the Irish border. #r4today

Oddly we had freedom of movement and customs controls between the UK and Ireland from 1922 right up to the creation of the EU in 1992 (bar a short period in WWII when FOM was restricted). I remember my father regularly being stopped and asked to open his car boot at ports on either side of the Irish Sea when we travelled their by ferry (pre Ryanair cheap fares) but no one ever even asked to see a driving licence let alone a passport as proof of ID or nationality for any of us.

And that was before the days of the Internet. Odd what we both made work perfectly fine for 70 years - most of which was long before the troubles started - can't be made to work again using modern thechnology.

The EU will impose a hard border on its Celtic satrapy.

We keep hearing this - but can anyone really see the EU enforcing ROI to build a unilateral border ?

Would be the new "Berlin's Wall" - the footage of EU commissioned workmen putting up barriers between the North and South will be terrible optics.

"Hard border" doesn't mean a wall.

It means some sort of physical infrastructure on the RoI side - just the 300 border crossing points to take care of..

It doesn't even need to be that many: like on the Swiss-French border, you would have permanently manned customs posts on the dozen major arteries, and occasional pop up checks on minor roads.

Forget the border controls for a second and ask yourself how the associated bureaucracy is consistent with our commitment to maintain alignment to support the all-island economy?

The GFA does not commit the UK, or any part of it, to remain in the EU, nor to economic harmonisation with the Irish Republic,

Currently, Northern Ireland has a separate currency to the Irish Republic, a separate legal system, different levels of taxation, different employment and planning laws, and a host of distinctions that stand in the way of creating a single economy on the island of Ireland. Yet, for some reason, a few customs posts are supposed to be a deal-breaker.

Anorak said:

philiph said:

I tend to see things differently.

The heart of the problem, I think.

I see the basic choices as simple.
FOM or SM
FTAs or CU

Am I wrong, or are those the binary choices that we have?

Agreeing on them and then working to implement is the hard bit.
I haven't even expressed a preference for one or the other!

Yep......

https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/961204386792919041

williamglenn said:

welshowl said:

I'm sure Eamon De Valera sat there in 1920 odd and looked in horror at the map and said "Christ boys, we'll have to call this push for independence lark off, we might have a customs problem on the N54 in County Monaghan. I mean look it's all wiggly, so we're stuffed. That's it I'm off to the palace to submit to the Crown and live out my life as a happy subject of King George V and his Customs Union".

It would all be so much easier if we didn't have a modern, integrated economy...

Sandpit said:

There things are not difficult, and are in place in loads of other places such as the world’s longest land border between the USA and Canada.

Where there’s a will there’s a way, but a lot of people don’t want to have the will.

Why should the people living near the border have any will to find a way to impose further political separation upon themselves when they don't think there should be a border at all? The whole thing is an absurdity.

Eamon De Valera and Michael Collins imposed a border on them just as much as the British Govt and N Ireland Unionists did.

Now I accept, as I'm sure we all do, the Irish had a right to that. They wanted self determination and to be independent to make their own decisions, free as much as practically possibly from the bigger entity and things like its customs union and single market. I'm sure it wasn't without risks of far greater economic dislocation than the UK would experience due to Brexit of whatever hardness from spongy to diamond.

It's not about the money. If we want independence from the bigger entity it might cost a few quid. It needn't, but the EU is seemingly determined to make it so. So be it. I don't care. I really don't care, and I'm certainly not going to be bullied because of the possible consequences on some road between Monaghan and Cavan.

williamglenn said:

Sean_F said:

The GFA does not commit the UK, or any part of it, to remain in the EU, nor to economic harmonisation with the Irish Republic,

Currently, Northern Ireland has a separate currency to the Irish Republic, a separate legal system, different levels of taxation, different employment and planning laws, and a host of distinctions that stand in the way of creating a single economy on the island of Ireland. Yet, for some reason, a few customs posts are supposed to be a deal-breaker.

The phase one agreement commits us to:

1) support North-South cooperation
2) support the all-island economy
3) uphold the GFA

Those are separate strands, which taken together mean there can be no backsliding on the level of economic integration that currently exists.

Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

TGOHF said:

geoffw said:

TGOHF said:

geoffw said:

brendan16 said:

Scott_P said:

Brexiteer promotes Irish unification...

@PolhomeEditor: Tory Brexiteers Bernard Jenkin says “there is going to be a customs frontier at the points of entry between the European Union and United Kingdom”, but insists that won’t mean checks on the Irish border. #r4today

Oddly we had freedom of movement and customs controls between the UK and Ireland from 1922 right up to the creation of the EU in 1992 (bar a short period in WWII when FOM was restricted). I remember my father regularly being stopped and asked to open his car boot at ports on either side of the Irish Sea when we travelled their by ferry (pre Ryanair cheap fares) but no one ever even asked to see a driving licence let alone a passport as proof of ID or nationality for any of us.

And that was before the days of the Internet. Odd what we both made work perfectly fine for 70 years - most of which was long before the troubles started - can't be made to work again using modern thechnology.

The EU will impose a hard border on its Celtic satrapy.

We keep hearing this - but can anyone really see the EU enforcing ROI to build a unilateral border ?

Would be the new "Berlin's Wall" - the footage of EU commissioned workmen putting up barriers between the North and South will be terrible optics.

"Hard border" doesn't mean a wall.

It means some sort of physical infrastructure on the RoI side - just the 300 border crossing points to take care of..

It doesn't even need to be that many: like on the Swiss-French border, you would have permanently manned customs posts on the dozen major arteries, and occasional pop up checks on minor roads.

Forget the border controls for a second and ask yourself how the associated bureaucracy is consistent with our commitment to maintain alignment to support the all-island economy?

Yet, for some reason, a few customs posts are supposed to be a deal-breaker.

Another 'last straw'.....another one fell away yesterday......

CarlottaVance said:

Yep......

https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/961204386792919041

No one can answer until the negotiations with the EU are complete. The arrangements can not be decided by us or (the rest of) the EU alone - it's a negotiation.

williamglenn said:

Sean_F said:

The GFA does not commit the UK, or any part of it, to remain in the EU, nor to economic harmonisation with the Irish Republic,

Currently, Northern Ireland has a separate currency to the Irish Republic, a separate legal system, different levels of taxation, different employment and planning laws, and a host of distinctions that stand in the way of creating a single economy on the island of Ireland. Yet, for some reason, a few customs posts are supposed to be a deal-breaker.

The phase one agreement commits us to:

1) support North-South cooperation
2) support the all-island economy
3) uphold the GFA

Those are separate strands, which taken together mean there can be no backsliding on the level of economic integration that currently exists.

That's open to interpretation. After all, when Ireland adopted the Euro, in 1999, it was introducing a degree of economic divergence from the UK, which did not adopt the Euro.

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

Sean_F said:

The GFA does not commit the UK, or any part of it, to remain in the EU, nor to economic harmonisation with the Irish Republic,

Currently, Northern Ireland has a separate currency to the Irish Republic, a separate legal system, different levels of taxation, different employment and planning laws, and a host of distinctions that stand in the way of creating a single economy on the island of Ireland. Yet, for some reason, a few customs posts are supposed to be a deal-breaker.

The phase one agreement commits us to:

1) support North-South cooperation
2) support the all-island economy
3) uphold the GFA

Those are separate strands, which taken together mean there can be no backsliding on the level of economic integration that currently exists.

That's open to interpretation. After all, when Ireland adopted the Euro, in 1999, it was introducing a degree of economic divergence from the UK, which did not adopt the Euro.

That was when only one of those strands applied: the GFA.

Sean_F said:

The GFA does not commit the UK, or any part of it, to remain in the EU, nor to economic harmonisation with the Irish Republic,

Currently, Northern Ireland has a separate currency to the Irish Republic, a separate legal system, different levels of taxation, different employment and planning laws, and a host of distinctions that stand in the way of creating a single economy on the island of Ireland. Yet, for some reason, a few customs posts are supposed to be a deal-breaker.

As I've repeatedly pointed out, it also has customs regulations at the border. You can't legally load up a van in Dublin with Jameson Whiskey and drive it to Belfast to sell it, without declaring it to HMRC and paying the excise duty (and vice versa for booze'n'fags in the opposite direction). No one has ever answered my question: given that is the case, how come there aren't customs posts at the border now?

Labour silenced by May's comment about 1928 decision on all women to vote. By a Tory government.

Sorry Jeremy, but the majority of Suffragettes were middle class, -like you- not working class. Not done your research again.

stevef said:

Sorry Jeremy, but the majority of Suffragettes were middle class, -like you- not working class. Not done your research again.

Also, millions of working class men got the vote in 1918.

williamglenn said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

Sean_F said:

The GFA does not commit the UK, or any part of it, to remain in the EU, nor to economic harmonisation with the Irish Republic,

Currently, Northern Ireland has a separate currency to the Irish Republic, a separate legal system, different levels of taxation, different employment and planning laws, and a host of distinctions that stand in the way of creating a single economy on the island of Ireland. Yet, for some reason, a few customs posts are supposed to be a deal-breaker.

The phase one agreement commits us to:

1) support North-South cooperation
2) support the all-island economy
3) uphold the GFA

Those are separate strands, which taken together mean there can be no backsliding on the level of economic integration that currently exists.

That's open to interpretation. After all, when Ireland adopted the Euro, in 1999, it was introducing a degree of economic divergence from the UK, which did not adopt the Euro.

That was when only one of those strands applied: the GFA.

And If President Macron's proposals for EZ budgets and an EZ Finance Minister were adopted by the EZ, that would be a further divergence between EZ and non-EZ countries, but I think it would be silly for us to argue that this was placing Ireland in breach of the GFA.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

stevef said:

Sorry Jeremy, but the majority of Suffragettes were middle class, -like you- not working class. Not done your research again.

Also, millions of working class men got the vote in 1918.

Granted by a Liberal PM and thereafter Labour replaced the Liberals.