Some liability who gives a fuck what non Labour voters think of Jezza
Anyone who cares about winning an election gives a fuck what non-Labour voters think of Jezza.
If for every extra vote you add, you add 2 to your opposition, then you are a liability.
It was aptly noted by @Cyclefree that Jeremy Corbyn was Britain's Trump and the same happened in 2020.
In 2020 Donald Trump got 9 million more votes than Barack Obama did in 2012. The problem for Trump, is that he was such a liability that Joe Biden got 16 million more votes than Obama did in 2012.
You are the red hat MAGA/Momentum obsessive saying "look at our extra votes" while ignoring how repellent your guy was that he drove up the opposition even higher.
The 2017 Corbyn electoral miracle saw the Tories expand their vote by 2.3m. When the party in government picks up 20% more votes than when it won last time, you are not "winning" no matter how much the cranks say so.
- firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer
In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.
So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…
As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).
So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!
Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.
Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.
The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.
The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)
Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
LOL if the majority in the country voted to leave who are you to tell them theyre wrong ?
The majority of the country now think they were wrong. Who are you to tell us that our opinions were set in stone back in 2016 ?
Oh really, are you that naive ?
The current polls simply reflect a long whine from remianers blaming everything they can think of on Brexit, often when it has nothing to do with it.
What is missing is the the long list of bad news from the EU which regularly occurred when we were in. We had a taste of that in the Covid fiasco when Van der Leyen demanded all our AZ jabs.
But currently were missing the £17 billion quid handed over in times of austerity, the keep Germany's lights on diktat on pool gas resources, the dont upset Putin schtick in Ukraine we would have been tied in with via EU foreign policies, lots more immigration, and all the daily low level bollocks which just pissed people off.
The news cycle to date has mostly been one way, the polls are simply reflecting that, throw in the reality of what we have missed out on and they wont be showing those results.
Well I can see your opinion is indeed set in stone.
'Long whine' is good. As though that would persuade anyone against their will.
My opinions not set in stone, there have been some uncomfortable adjustments as a result of Brexit but the country isnt falling apart because of it. Covid and Putin have had much bigger impacts.
And as for the whining, the vote was almost 7 years ago, I prefer to look forward rather than cling on to a non existent past, you and the League of European Empire Loyalists still have your chance to seek to rejoin Nirvana. Maybe you could advance some positive arguments next time,
How is "better off in than out" not a positive argument?
My point is that we should not be blaming overzealous Germans or vindictive French or lazy Spanish (fill in your own opinions as necessary) for passport checking. This is a direct result of Brexit. It didnt have to be this way because 'get Brexit done' took precedence over 'making Brexit work'. But this is what we have got.
Politicians should stop trying to blame everyone and everything for why it doesn't work - and instead do something about it. Like negotiate with compromise not bluster.
And you are missing the point that the checks *always happened*
They have just thrown some grit in the process
No, we have.
Not as much as they have.
For example it is very very quick to enter the US now.
That depends on when and where you are entering. But it can definitely be quicker than it was, that is for sure.
The issue with the EU is to do with FoM. It is a benefit of membership or of specific treaty. If we want a version of it, we need to negotiate it specifically. When you say you want to be treated as a third country, then that is what you get.
My guess is that now that the grown-ups are in charge here, the EU may be more inclined to discuss this - especially as its nationals are getting caught in the ferry queues because there are no eGates at ports. The approach that Johnson and Frost took to the negotiating process was pretty much guaranteed to get the worst possible results.
FoM about the right to be treated equivalent to a domestic citizen not about entry rules (although that might come as a side benefit)
Freedom of Movement is about being able to move freely across borders actually.
It uses the Facebook LLaMA model, but has been trained on GPT question and answer sets (which is a neat time saver), and which will run on consumer grade hardware:
My point is that we should not be blaming overzealous Germans or vindictive French or lazy Spanish (fill in your own opinions as necessary) for passport checking. This is a direct result of Brexit. It didnt have to be this way because 'get Brexit done' took precedence over 'making Brexit work'. But this is what we have got.
Politicians should stop trying to blame everyone and everything for why it doesn't work - and instead do something about it. Like negotiate with compromise not bluster.
And you are missing the point that the checks *always happened*
They have just thrown some grit in the process
No, we have.
Not as much as they have.
For example it is very very quick to enter the US now.
That depends on when and where you are entering. But it can definitely be quicker than it was, that is for sure.
The issue with the EU is to do with FoM. It is a benefit of membership or of specific treaty. If we want a version of it, we need to negotiate it specifically. When you say you want to be treated as a third country, then that is what you get.
My guess is that now that the grown-ups are in charge here, the EU may be more inclined to discuss this - especially as its nationals are getting caught in the ferry queues because there are no eGates at ports. The approach that Johnson and Frost took to the negotiating process was pretty much guaranteed to get the worst possible results.
FoM about the right to be treated equivalent to a domestic citizen not about entry rules (although that might come as a side benefit)
Freedom of movement is integral to equality of treatment: when entering another EU member state all EU citizens enjoy exactly the same rights as its nationals, so, for example, access to eGates and no time limit for staying (for as long as you can support yourself).
Yes - but eGates are a marginal benefit of FoM not central by any means. And access to the eGates is given independent of FoM
- firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer
In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.
So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…
As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).
So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!
Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.
Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.
The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.
The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)
Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
LOL if the majority in the country voted to leave who are you to tell them theyre wrong ?
The majority of the country now think they were wrong. Who are you to tell us that our opinions were set in stone back in 2016 ?
Oh really, are you that naive ?
The current polls simply reflect a long whine from remianers blaming everything they can think of on Brexit, often when it has nothing to do with it.
What is missing is the the long list of bad news from the EU which regularly occurred when we were in. We had a taste of that in the Covid fiasco when Van der Leyen demanded all our AZ jabs.
But currently were missing the £17 billion quid handed over in times of austerity, the keep Germany's lights on diktat on pool gas resources, the dont upset Putin schtick in Ukraine we would have been tied in with via EU foreign policies, lots more immigration, and all the daily low level bollocks which just pissed people off.
The news cycle to date has mostly been one way, the polls are simply reflecting that, throw in the reality of what we have missed out on and they wont be showing those results.
Well I can see your opinion is indeed set in stone.
'Long whine' is good. As though that would persuade anyone against their will.
My opinions not set in stone, there have been some uncomfortable adjustments as a result of Brexit but the country isnt falling apart because of it. Covid and Putin have had much bigger impacts.
And as for the whining, the vote was almost 7 years ago, I prefer to look forward rather than cling on to a non existent past, you and the League of European Empire Loyalists still have your chance to seek to rejoin Nirvana. Maybe you could advance some positive arguments next time,
How is "better off in than out" not a positive argument?
Er...remaining part of the largest trading block in the world? That sounds pretty positive to me Reg...
- firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer
In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.
So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…
As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).
So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!
Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.
Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.
The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.
The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)
Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
I 100% disagree
Once there was a referendum vote in favour the choice was “implement the democratically expressed views of the electorate” or “don’t”.
It was no longer about Brexit
And ignoring the democratically expressed views of the electorate is not something that is done in mature democracies
Two different things. The vote gives the decision a legitimacy that makes reversing it more difficult than if it was a simple executive decision. Having a vote doesn't mean the decision is any less likely to be a mistake.
We're in the situation where the consensus (2 to 1) thinks Brexit was a mistake but there is no easy way to reverse it.
If you can't reverse a mistake, you need learn to live with it. Unfortunately neither of the Leave nor Remain tribes has any interest in damage limitation. The first doesn't admit to the damage that needs limiting; the second didn't choose the damage in the first place.
So we're stuck.
We wouldn't be, if only people would stop defining themselves by how they voted in 2016.
- firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer
In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.
So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…
As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).
So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!
Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.
Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.
The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.
The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)
Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
LOL if the majority in the country voted to leave who are you to tell them theyre wrong ?
The majority of the country now think they were wrong. Who are you to tell us that our opinions were set in stone back in 2016 ?
Isn't the real problem this. Of the two basic positions - IN or OUT of the EU there is neither a clear consistent majority, nor even a clear consistent plurality. Nor is there going to be so far as we can see.
This is one of three such difficulties. The island of Ireland has presented the same lack of majority or plurality, compounded by variable geometry as to what the relevant constituency comprises.
And Scotland demonstrates exactly the same picture - no clear consistent majority or plurality for Independence or for being in the UK.
Either the opinion gap is too small and/or who is in the lead varies.
Does this suggest that the questions are the wrong ones, the choices too limited, or leadership at all levels lacking in talent and conviction.
At the moment all three look literally interminable.
Are some new answers needed, linking the problems. Like: A four state solution: NI, E and W, Scotland, RoI. All in EFTA/EEA and NATO?
They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.
The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.
You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.
Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.
Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.
Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."
Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
As it happens Grey Squirrels are largely urban animals whereas Red ones are rural. If there are any squirrel lovers on here-seems unlikely as most favour the gas chambers-I saw a black one on Cap Ferrat crossing the appropriately named Rue Somerset Maugham.
I took a long look round and eventually saw quite a few. Jet black but otherwise quite similar to the Red. I asked around and it seems that there's a colony of them which live around the forests in that area.
Fortunately for them the wealthy burghers of Cap Ferrat seem happy to live and let live.
There are loads of black squirrels round my way. It's fun seeing a black and grey 'playing' together. (I put 'playing' in quotes because I've little idea if they were playing, fighting, or performing some form of weird sciurine mating ritual...)
In political terms I think there is a huge gap in the market - one the Lib Dems have been trying to fill but lack the scale to do fully - for, for want of a better word, human scale environmentalism.
There are 2 very different environmental crises we are dealing with in the UK. One involves mitigating climate change. It’s a huge task, demanding global effort and a complete overhaul of our energy mix. And we’re making progress.
The other is altogether different, even if climate change itself may be part of the cause. That’s the degradation of our natural habitats, threats to our native wildlife and the overall quality of our air, water and food.
I think there is scope for the British electorate to support quite radical policies on this. Imagine a manifesto that focused on the transformation of our natural environment:
- Much tougher rules on inland water quality, agricultural nitrate leaching into rivers, and coastal waters, supported by funding - A concerted effort to phase out all single use plastic through taxation and regulation - Proper regulations on the density of hill sheep farming with major habitat restoration efforts in areas like the central wales desert - ULEZ style air quality rules rolled out in all urban areas, and progressively tightened (with the necessary transitional support like scrappage schemes to get people there) - Reintroduction of lost species - A system wide focus on identifying and addressing the causes of our catastrophic insect losses
One of the main things that makes the difference between a happy day and a sad day is the state of the environment around us. Fresh air, birdsong, clean streets, greenery. It’s a perfect kernel of a retail politics offer from the Green Party but they seem distracted as always by issues that aren’t even particularly green.
My point is that we should not be blaming overzealous Germans or vindictive French or lazy Spanish (fill in your own opinions as necessary) for passport checking. This is a direct result of Brexit. It didnt have to be this way because 'get Brexit done' took precedence over 'making Brexit work'. But this is what we have got.
Politicians should stop trying to blame everyone and everything for why it doesn't work - and instead do something about it. Like negotiate with compromise not bluster.
And you are missing the point that the checks *always happened*
They have just thrown some grit in the process
No, we have.
Not as much as they have.
For example it is very very quick to enter the US now.
That depends on when and where you are entering. But it can definitely be quicker than it was, that is for sure.
The issue with the EU is to do with FoM. It is a benefit of membership or of specific treaty. If we want a version of it, we need to negotiate it specifically. When you say you want to be treated as a third country, then that is what you get.
My guess is that now that the grown-ups are in charge here, the EU may be more inclined to discuss this - especially as its nationals are getting caught in the ferry queues because there are no eGates at ports. The approach that Johnson and Frost took to the negotiating process was pretty much guaranteed to get the worst possible results.
FoM about the right to be treated equivalent to a domestic citizen not about entry rules (although that might come as a side benefit)
Freedom of movement is integral to equality of treatment: when entering another EU member state all EU citizens enjoy exactly the same rights as its nationals, so, for example, access to eGates and no time limit for staying (for as long as you can support yourself).
Yes - but eGates are a marginal benefit of FoM not central by any means. And access to the eGates is given independent of FoM
Access to eGates may be given independent of FoM to non-EU citizens by individual member states. It cannot be denied to any EU citizens by any member state.
- firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer
In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.
So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…
As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).
So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!
Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.
Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.
The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.
The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)
Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
I 100% disagree
Once there was a referendum vote in favour the choice was “implement the democratically expressed views of the electorate” or “don’t”.
It was no longer about Brexit
And ignoring the democratically expressed views of the electorate is not something that is done in mature democracies
Two different things. The vote gives the decision a legitimacy that makes reversing it more difficult than if it was a simple executive decision. Having a vote doesn't mean the decision is any less likely to be a mistake.
We're in the situation where the consensus (2 to 1) thinks Brexit was a mistake but there is no easy way to reverse it.
If you can't reverse a mistake, you need learn to live with it. Unfortunately neither of the Leave nor Remain tribes has any interest in damage limitation. The first doesn't admit to the damage that needs limiting; the second didn't choose the damage in the first place.
So we're stuck.
We wouldn't be, if only people would stop defining themselves by how they voted in 2016.
I don't define myself by the way I voted (well Ok except for my name), but it's not going to stop me laughing at those that still believe it was anything more than a pile of pointless shit
They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.
The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.
You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.
Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.
Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.
Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."
Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
Might help with the deer problem in the UK. And the badgers.
Casino Royale's objections to eating venison notwithstanding, I don't see that there is a deer problem. Just increase the cull numbers and let people hunt and eat them. I'd far rather a deer problem than a wolf one. The idea of reintroducing them is deeply stupid.
They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.
The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.
You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.
Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.
Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.
Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."
Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
As it happens Grey Squirrels are largely urban animals whereas Red ones are rural. If there are any squirrel lovers on here-seems unlikely as most favour the gas chambers-I saw a black one on Cap Ferrat crossing the appropriately named Rue Somerset Maugham.
I took a long look round and eventually saw quite a few. Jet black but otherwise quite similar to the Red. I asked around and it seems that there's a colony of them which live around the forests in that area.
Fortunately for them the wealthy burghers of Cap Ferrat seem happy to live and let live.
There are loads of black squirrels round my way. It's fun seeing a black and grey 'playing' together. (I put 'playing' in quotes because I've little idea if they were playing, fighting, or performing some form of weird sciurine mating ritual...)
If they mate presumably the progeny would come out in a rather nice panzer grey.
Mendel says hi...
I think it is a single genetic variation so there may not be any graduation.
- firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer
In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.
So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…
As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).
So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!
Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.
Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.
The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.
The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)
Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
LOL if the majority in the country voted to leave who are you to tell them theyre wrong ?
The majority of the country now think they were wrong. Who are you to tell us that our opinions were set in stone back in 2016 ?
Oh really, are you that naive ?
The current polls simply reflect a long whine from remianers blaming everything they can think of on Brexit, often when it has nothing to do with it.
What is missing is the the long list of bad news from the EU which regularly occurred when we were in. We had a taste of that in the Covid fiasco when Van der Leyen demanded all our AZ jabs.
But currently were missing the £17 billion quid handed over in times of austerity, the keep Germany's lights on diktat on pool gas resources, the dont upset Putin schtick in Ukraine we would have been tied in with via EU foreign policies, lots more immigration, and all the daily low level bollocks which just pissed people off.
The news cycle to date has mostly been one way, the polls are simply reflecting that, throw in the reality of what we have missed out on and they wont be showing those results.
We're also missing the extra growth that our £17.5 billion would have helped deliver thanks to membership of the single market and customs union, as well as the lower inflation.
The 17 billion and more have been swallowed by covid and the cost of living. Like most western countries were having to dig in just to stand still.
The facts of the world economy have changed radically since 2017.
They have indeed. And we have made it harder for ourselves to deal with them. But we are where we are.
There are three options for dealing with border queues to the EU (1) stop travelling (2) take your chances with the delays, cancellations and extra cost in the full knowledge that it used to be much better and it didn't need to be like this (3) negotiate a new agreement with the EU to bring the UK closer to where it was before and to the EU.
As (2) is not likely to go away, I suspect governments will want to explore (3).
Hasn't Portugal already implemented 3? Because, you know, they value our tourists?
- firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer
In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.
So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…
As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).
So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!
Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.
Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.
The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.
The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)
Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
LOL if the majority in the country voted to leave who are you to tell them theyre wrong ?
The majority of the country now think they were wrong. Who are you to tell us that our opinions were set in stone back in 2016 ?
Oh really, are you that naive ?
The current polls simply reflect a long whine from remianers blaming everything they can think of on Brexit, often when it has nothing to do with it.
What is missing is the the long list of bad news from the EU which regularly occurred when we were in. We had a taste of that in the Covid fiasco when Van der Leyen demanded all our AZ jabs.
But currently were missing the £17 billion quid handed over in times of austerity, the keep Germany's lights on diktat on pool gas resources, the dont upset Putin schtick in Ukraine we would have been tied in with via EU foreign policies, lots more immigration, and all the daily low level bollocks which just pissed people off.
The news cycle to date has mostly been one way, the polls are simply reflecting that, throw in the reality of what we have missed out on and they wont be showing those results.
Well I can see your opinion is indeed set in stone.
'Long whine' is good. As though that would persuade anyone against their will.
My opinions not set in stone, there have been some uncomfortable adjustments as a result of Brexit but the country isnt falling apart because of it. Covid and Putin have had much bigger impacts.
And as for the whining, the vote was almost 7 years ago, I prefer to look forward rather than cling on to a non existent past, you and the League of European Empire Loyalists still have your chance to seek to rejoin Nirvana. Maybe you could advance some positive arguments next time,
I have, regularly, since Brexit. The fact that I regard the original decision as a mistake doesn't mean I haven't been a proponent of managing it better.
Was it you who assured me that our car industry was going to be fine ? I seem to recall arguments with several ardent Brexiteers who were adamant that the transition to EVs wouldn't be a threat to UK manufacturing. We could have averted that.
Myself and @another_richard have spent about 10 years on this site warning the run down of UK manufacturing through governmental neglect was a major issue. I find it somewhat amusing that those who said we had were wrong are now doing a 189 degree turn becuase they want to use it for a Brexit argument.
As for the UK car industry its problems are nor Brexit related except at the margins, They are the usual issue of government neglect the Tories are as bad as Blair, supply chain weaknesses through chip availability, it's own shooting itself in the foot through confusing customers on power train and fuel systems. I suspect you will find I was not a big EV supporter as I couldnt see where we would be putting the infrastructure in in time, And still dont.
My point is that we should not be blaming overzealous Germans or vindictive French or lazy Spanish (fill in your own opinions as necessary) for passport checking. This is a direct result of Brexit. It didnt have to be this way because 'get Brexit done' took precedence over 'making Brexit work'. But this is what we have got.
Politicians should stop trying to blame everyone and everything for why it doesn't work - and instead do something about it. Like negotiate with compromise not bluster.
And you are missing the point that the checks *always happened*
They have just thrown some grit in the process
No, we have.
Not as much as they have.
For example it is very very quick to enter the US now.
Eh? I was in the immigration queue at JFK for almost three hours back in February.
Immigration at JFK has always been unpleasant and drawn out, tbf.
In a statement issued by a spokesman Monday night, Hogan said: “Yumi and I are deeply saddened by this tragic situation. We are praying for Mr. McGrath’s family and loved ones.”
What led authorities to McGrath on Monday evening has not yet been disclosed. Multiple people on Twitter reported seeing a massive police presence involving the FBI at a shopping center in Farragut, Tennessee — more than 800 miles from McGrath’s South Florida home...
...Quickly, a large number of additional police vehicles from multiple agencies descended on the scene and police started putting up caution tape. Both side windows of the SUV had been shot out. He said he saw a man being taken out of the SUV and put onto a stretcher, with a sheet pulled up to his neck. He said he could see blood on the ground.
Housley did not witness the shooting, but said that someone who did told him that agents were ordering the man out of the car and to put his hands up, and that the man reached for something and the agents opened fire.
The shooting took place in a commercial area that Housley described as higher-end. “Everybody was like, what is going on, this doesn’t happen in Farragut,” Housley said...
My point is that we should not be blaming overzealous Germans or vindictive French or lazy Spanish (fill in your own opinions as necessary) for passport checking. This is a direct result of Brexit. It didnt have to be this way because 'get Brexit done' took precedence over 'making Brexit work'. But this is what we have got.
Politicians should stop trying to blame everyone and everything for why it doesn't work - and instead do something about it. Like negotiate with compromise not bluster.
And you are missing the point that the checks *always happened*
They have just thrown some grit in the process
No, we have.
Not as much as they have.
For example it is very very quick to enter the US now.
That depends on when and where you are entering. But it can definitely be quicker than it was, that is for sure.
The issue with the EU is to do with FoM. It is a benefit of membership or of specific treaty. If we want a version of it, we need to negotiate it specifically. When you say you want to be treated as a third country, then that is what you get.
My guess is that now that the grown-ups are in charge here, the EU may be more inclined to discuss this - especially as its nationals are getting caught in the ferry queues because there are no eGates at ports. The approach that Johnson and Frost took to the negotiating process was pretty much guaranteed to get the worst possible results.
FoM about the right to be treated equivalent to a domestic citizen not about entry rules (although that might come as a side benefit)
Freedom of Movement is about being able to move freely across borders actually.
That’s not the really value.
The issue in the UK was access to the non-contributory welfare state on the same terms as a UK citizen for example.
- firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer
In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.
So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…
Maybe the checks re not being done as efficiently as they could be, but the simple truth is the checks are entirely due to Brexit - No Brexit no checks required.
I must have missed the US and Australia joining the EU.
I refer you to my comment about efficiency - The US & Oz are still being checked albeit using the e-gates. Prior to Brexit they were also being checked but UK was not. I dont know why UK can not use e-gates - does anyone out there know (with facts not opinionated rhetoric?)
The UK was being checked.
As to why to UK can’t use automated gates it’s the EU digging their heels in to make a visible point to UK travellers.
Essentially early on in the negotiations the UK said “why don’t we both agree to use the automated gates. It’s easy and makes everyone better off”
The EU said no. Because… reasons
The UK then said “Whatever as a gesture of goodwill (and because we believe that easy travel makes us better off) we will allow it unilaterally”
Late in the negotiations the UK then said “Look why don’t you throw in use of the automated gates as it makes everyone better off”
The EU said “what will you give us in return for that? You’ve already opened your gates unilaterally so that doesn’t count”
So because the EU don’t understand the concept of a win-win negotiation where sometimes you give something that costs them nothing but makes the other side better off we have ended up with the present pointless frustration.
Leaving aside the EU tantruming and inability to finish their system on time, does not ETIAS for UK citizens eventually apply from 2024?
- firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer
In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.
So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…
As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).
So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!
Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.
Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.
The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.
The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)
Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
LOL if the majority in the country voted to leave who are you to tell them theyre wrong ?
The majority of the country now think they were wrong. Who are you to tell us that our opinions were set in stone back in 2016 ?
There's two sets of polling. One is would you rejoin (misleading - doesn't set out what the new arrangement would be/would cost) and then there is there was it right or wrong to leave.
Both are impacted massively by covid and the war in Ukraine, as those have had huge effects on the economy, also seen in most other countries that DIDN'T Brexit.
OK then.
In your opinion, how unpopular does Brexit have to be for how long for revisiting the question of whether the UK should be closer to / in the EU become the democratic thing to do?
(My answer, for what it's worth, is that if Brexit is still unpopular after Starmer's Operation Make Brexit Work, we'll have no choice.)
I'm very happy to become as close as possible to the EU. I voted remain after much soul searching and wish we had stayed in. I also think if the government of the day wants to move as close as possible it can. Rejoin (under new terms - we won't get the same deal we had again) would, I think, need a new mandate (via General election with it in the manisfesto or a new referendum). It may happen, but my preferred state now is as close co-operation as possible. The EU is, effectively, a protection racket, but a very big one that worked well for the UK economy to be part of. I embrace free trade, but of course while we have free trade with the EU, its currently not frictionless, and every effort should be made to make it so.
Much my position as well and I did vote remain too
My position is slightly different. I voted to remain, but when the result arrived clearly we had to leave. Now we're out there's no problem having another referendum to go back in though.
This is of course the correct position. Before the referendum, there was a case for leaving and a case for remaining but there was no case for voting to leave but remaining anyway.
The problem is we ended up further outside than the result or public opinion demanded, so the job of unwinding that is now under way.
- firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer
In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.
So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…
As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).
So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!
Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.
Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.
The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.
The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)
Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
LOL if the majority in the country voted to leave who are you to tell them theyre wrong ?
The majority of the country now think they were wrong. Who are you to tell us that our opinions were set in stone back in 2016 ?
There's two sets of polling. One is would you rejoin (misleading - doesn't set out what the new arrangement would be/would cost) and then there is there was it right or wrong to leave.
Both are impacted massively by covid and the war in Ukraine, as those have had huge effects on the economy, also seen in most other countries that DIDN'T Brexit.
OK then.
In your opinion, how unpopular does Brexit have to be for how long for revisiting the question of whether the UK should be closer to / in the EU become the democratic thing to do?
(My answer, for what it's worth, is that if Brexit is still unpopular after Starmer's Operation Make Brexit Work, we'll have no choice.)
I'm very happy to become as close as possible to the EU. I voted remain after much soul searching and wish we had stayed in. I also think if the government of the day wants to move as close as possible it can. Rejoin (under new terms - we won't get the same deal we had again) would, I think, need a new mandate (via General election with it in the manisfesto or a new referendum). It may happen, but my preferred state now is as close co-operation as possible. The EU is, effectively, a protection racket, but a very big one that worked well for the UK economy to be part of. I embrace free trade, but of course while we have free trade with the EU, its currently not frictionless, and every effort should be made to make it so.
Much my position as well and I did vote remain too
My position is slightly different. I voted to remain, but when the result arrived clearly we had to leave. Now we're out there's no problem having another referendum to go back in though.
Hokey Cokey in/out every decade would be the worst possible route.
My point is that we should not be blaming overzealous Germans or vindictive French or lazy Spanish (fill in your own opinions as necessary) for passport checking. This is a direct result of Brexit. It didnt have to be this way because 'get Brexit done' took precedence over 'making Brexit work'. But this is what we have got.
Politicians should stop trying to blame everyone and everything for why it doesn't work - and instead do something about it. Like negotiate with compromise not bluster.
And you are missing the point that the checks *always happened*
They have just thrown some grit in the process
No, we have.
Not as much as they have.
For example it is very very quick to enter the US now.
That depends on when and where you are entering. But it can definitely be quicker than it was, that is for sure.
The issue with the EU is to do with FoM. It is a benefit of membership or of specific treaty. If we want a version of it, we need to negotiate it specifically. When you say you want to be treated as a third country, then that is what you get.
My guess is that now that the grown-ups are in charge here, the EU may be more inclined to discuss this - especially as its nationals are getting caught in the ferry queues because there are no eGates at ports. The approach that Johnson and Frost took to the negotiating process was pretty much guaranteed to get the worst possible results.
FoM about the right to be treated equivalent to a domestic citizen not about entry rules (although that might come as a side benefit)
Freedom of movement is integral to equality of treatment: when entering another EU member state all EU citizens enjoy exactly the same rights as its nationals, so, for example, access to eGates and no time limit for staying (for as long as you can support yourself).
Yes - but eGates are a marginal benefit of FoM not central by any means. And access to the eGates is given independent of FoM
Access to eGates may be given independent of FoM to non-EU citizens by individual member states. It cannot be denied to any EU citizens by any member state.
I don’t disagree with that. But it’s only a minor piece of the story
Labour's lead is gradually coming down so swingback is occurring and will continue through to Election 24 but the mid-term lead became so great that they should still have a 5-10% lead on polling day IMO.
Touch and go whether they can pull off a majority with a 5-10% lead but with tactical voting and SNP imploding "opp north" I think they will manage to get a small 1-20 seat majority.
Interesting that Keith remains really rather unpopular for a LOTO at a time when the government itself is deeply unpopular and that remains the one caveat in all of this.
They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.
The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.
You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.
Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.
Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.
Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."
Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
- firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer
In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.
So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…
As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).
So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!
Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.
Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.
The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.
The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)
Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
LOL if the majority in the country voted to leave who are you to tell them theyre wrong ?
The majority of the country now think they were wrong. Who are you to tell us that our opinions were set in stone back in 2016 ?
Oh really, are you that naive ?
The current polls simply reflect a long whine from remianers blaming everything they can think of on Brexit, often when it has nothing to do with it.
What is missing is the the long list of bad news from the EU which regularly occurred when we were in. We had a taste of that in the Covid fiasco when Van der Leyen demanded all our AZ jabs.
But currently were missing the £17 billion quid handed over in times of austerity, the keep Germany's lights on diktat on pool gas resources, the dont upset Putin schtick in Ukraine we would have been tied in with via EU foreign policies, lots more immigration, and all the daily low level bollocks which just pissed people off.
The news cycle to date has mostly been one way, the polls are simply reflecting that, throw in the reality of what we have missed out on and they wont be showing those results.
Well I can see your opinion is indeed set in stone.
'Long whine' is good. As though that would persuade anyone against their will.
My opinions not set in stone, there have been some uncomfortable adjustments as a result of Brexit but the country isnt falling apart because of it. Covid and Putin have had much bigger impacts.
And as for the whining, the vote was almost 7 years ago, I prefer to look forward rather than cling on to a non existent past, you and the League of European Empire Loyalists still have your chance to seek to rejoin Nirvana. Maybe you could advance some positive arguments next time,
How is "better off in than out" not a positive argument?
It would have been, if only the Remain campaign had bothered to make it.
They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.
The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.
You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.
Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.
Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.
Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."
Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
Might help with the deer problem in the UK. And the badgers.
Casino Royale's objections to eating venison notwithstanding, I don't see that there is a deer problem. Just increase the cull numbers and let people hunt and eat them. I'd far rather a deer problem than a wolf one. The idea of reintroducing them is deeply stupid.
Deer in high numbers destroy habitats and prevent tree regeneration. I thought we wanted more trees these days?
Povlsen et al have the right idea in Glen Feshie. Having been there in the early 1990s and again recently, the difference a zero tolerance policy has made is extraordinary. A new forest is springing up. And not just the Pines and Birch, also the (currently rare) upland Willows.
- firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer
In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.
So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…
As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).
So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!
Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.
Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.
The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.
The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)
Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
LOL if the majority in the country voted to leave who are you to tell them theyre wrong ?
The majority of the country now think they were wrong. Who are you to tell us that our opinions were set in stone back in 2016 ?
Oh really, are you that naive ?
The current polls simply reflect a long whine from remianers blaming everything they can think of on Brexit, often when it has nothing to do with it.
What is missing is the the long list of bad news from the EU which regularly occurred when we were in. We had a taste of that in the Covid fiasco when Van der Leyen demanded all our AZ jabs.
But currently were missing the £17 billion quid handed over in times of austerity, the keep Germany's lights on diktat on pool gas resources, the dont upset Putin schtick in Ukraine we would have been tied in with via EU foreign policies, lots more immigration, and all the daily low level bollocks which just pissed people off.
The news cycle to date has mostly been one way, the polls are simply reflecting that, throw in the reality of what we have missed out on and they wont be showing those results.
Well I can see your opinion is indeed set in stone.
'Long whine' is good. As though that would persuade anyone against their will.
My opinions not set in stone, there have been some uncomfortable adjustments as a result of Brexit but the country isnt falling apart because of it. Covid and Putin have had much bigger impacts.
And as for the whining, the vote was almost 7 years ago, I prefer to look forward rather than cling on to a non existent past, you and the League of European Empire Loyalists still have your chance to seek to rejoin Nirvana. Maybe you could advance some positive arguments next time,
How is "better off in than out" not a positive argument?
It would have been, if only the Remain campaign had bothered to make it.
Which bit of "stonger, safer, better off" did you not hear?
Labour's lead is gradually coming down so swingback is occurring and will continue through to Election 24 but the mid-term lead became so great that they should still have a 5-10% lead on polling day IMO.
Touch and go whether they can pull off a majority with a 5-10% lead but with tactical voting and SNP imploding "opp north" I think they will manage to get a small 1-20 seat majority.
Interesting that Keith remains really rather unpopular for a LOTO at a time when the government itself is deeply unpopular and that remains the one caveat in all of this.
The Labour lead at the local elections will be interesting. If it's only single figures it would be slightly worrying for the party.
They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.
The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.
You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.
Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.
Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.
Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."
Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
- firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer
In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.
So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…
As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).
So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!
Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.
Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.
The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.
The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)
Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
LOL if the majority in the country voted to leave who are you to tell them theyre wrong ?
The majority of the country now think they were wrong. Who are you to tell us that our opinions were set in stone back in 2016 ?
Oh really, are you that naive ?
The current polls simply reflect a long whine from remianers blaming everything they can think of on Brexit, often when it has nothing to do with it.
What is missing is the the long list of bad news from the EU which regularly occurred when we were in. We had a taste of that in the Covid fiasco when Van der Leyen demanded all our AZ jabs.
But currently were missing the £17 billion quid handed over in times of austerity, the keep Germany's lights on diktat on pool gas resources, the dont upset Putin schtick in Ukraine we would have been tied in with via EU foreign policies, lots more immigration, and all the daily low level bollocks which just pissed people off.
The news cycle to date has mostly been one way, the polls are simply reflecting that, throw in the reality of what we have missed out on and they wont be showing those results.
Well I can see your opinion is indeed set in stone.
'Long whine' is good. As though that would persuade anyone against their will.
My opinions not set in stone, there have been some uncomfortable adjustments as a result of Brexit but the country isnt falling apart because of it. Covid and Putin have had much bigger impacts.
And as for the whining, the vote was almost 7 years ago, I prefer to look forward rather than cling on to a non existent past, you and the League of European Empire Loyalists still have your chance to seek to rejoin Nirvana. Maybe you could advance some positive arguments next time,
How is "better off in than out" not a positive argument?
Er...remaining part of the largest trading block in the world? That sounds pretty positive to me Reg...
Yes. An example of the top level POSITIVE argument of 'better off in than out'.
- firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer
In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.
So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…
As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).
So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!
Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.
Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.
The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.
The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)
Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
LOL if the majority in the country voted to leave who are you to tell them theyre wrong ?
The majority of the country now think they were wrong. Who are you to tell us that our opinions were set in stone back in 2016 ?
Oh really, are you that naive ?
The current polls simply reflect a long whine from remianers blaming everything they can think of on Brexit, often when it has nothing to do with it.
What is missing is the the long list of bad news from the EU which regularly occurred when we were in. We had a taste of that in the Covid fiasco when Van der Leyen demanded all our AZ jabs.
But currently were missing the £17 billion quid handed over in times of austerity, the keep Germany's lights on diktat on pool gas resources, the dont upset Putin schtick in Ukraine we would have been tied in with via EU foreign policies, lots more immigration, and all the daily low level bollocks which just pissed people off.
The news cycle to date has mostly been one way, the polls are simply reflecting that, throw in the reality of what we have missed out on and they wont be showing those results.
Well I can see your opinion is indeed set in stone.
'Long whine' is good. As though that would persuade anyone against their will.
My opinions not set in stone, there have been some uncomfortable adjustments as a result of Brexit but the country isnt falling apart because of it. Covid and Putin have had much bigger impacts.
And as for the whining, the vote was almost 7 years ago, I prefer to look forward rather than cling on to a non existent past, you and the League of European Empire Loyalists still have your chance to seek to rejoin Nirvana. Maybe you could advance some positive arguments next time,
How is "better off in than out" not a positive argument?
It would have been, if only the Remain campaign had bothered to make it.
Which bit of "stonger, safer, better off" did you not hear?
All of it. All I heard from Remain camaigners was how bad leaving would be. Which even though mathematically equivalent is emotionally very different.
Labour's lead is gradually coming down so swingback is occurring and will continue through to Election 24 but the mid-term lead became so great that they should still have a 5-10% lead on polling day IMO.
Touch and go whether they can pull off a majority with a 5-10% lead but with tactical voting and SNP imploding "opp north" I think they will manage to get a small 1-20 seat majority.
Interesting that Keith remains really rather unpopular for a LOTO at a time when the government itself is deeply unpopular and that remains the one caveat in all of this.
the big battle is the no shows
can Sunak get the pissed off Tories to come out and vote in spite of themselves and is mowing the lawn more interesting than voting SKS for lLabourites
- firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer
In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.
So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…
Maybe the checks re not being done as efficiently as they could be, but the simple truth is the checks are entirely due to Brexit - No Brexit no checks required.
I must have missed the US and Australia joining the EU.
I refer you to my comment about efficiency - The US & Oz are still being checked albeit using the e-gates. Prior to Brexit they were also being checked but UK was not. I dont know why UK can not use e-gates - does anyone out there know (with facts not opinionated rhetoric?)
The UK was being checked.
As to why to UK can’t use automated gates it’s the EU digging their heels in to make a visible point to UK travellers.
Essentially early on in the negotiations the UK said “why don’t we both agree to use the automated gates. It’s easy and makes everyone better off”
The EU said no. Because… reasons
The UK then said “Whatever as a gesture of goodwill (and because we believe that easy travel makes us better off) we will allow it unilaterally”
Late in the negotiations the UK then said “Look why don’t you throw in use of the automated gates as it makes everyone better off”
The EU said “what will you give us in return for that? You’ve already opened your gates unilaterally so that doesn’t count”
So because the EU don’t understand the concept of a win-win negotiation where sometimes you give something that costs them nothing but makes the other side better off we have ended up with the present pointless frustration.
Leaving aside the EU tantruming and inability to finish their system on time, does not ETIAS for UK citizens eventually apply from 2024?
The sad truth is that the latest Brexit-edged delays are one further ratchet on a progressive slowing of our border controls since at least 2001.
There was a time, long ago, when going through passport control at Dover, Calais, the Eurostar terminals or European airports often involved a bored looking French or other country official shrugging and waving you through en masse. This was a great improvement on the pre 1992 era when customs regularly checked the boot for contraband fags and booze.
Then came 9:11 and much longer and more thorough security checks. Then the Calais migrant city, especially around the Eurotunnel terminal, and much more meaningful passport checks particularly for people with children. Now Brexit.
Of course decades before that usBrits didn’t even travel with passports, we just hailed the border guard with an airy “I say old chap, open the gate will you and no idling”.
- firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer
In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.
So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…
As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).
So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!
Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.
Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.
The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.
The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)
Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
LOL if the majority in the country voted to leave who are you to tell them theyre wrong ?
The majority of the country now think they were wrong. Who are you to tell us that our opinions were set in stone back in 2016 ?
Oh really, are you that naive ?
The current polls simply reflect a long whine from remianers blaming everything they can think of on Brexit, often when it has nothing to do with it.
What is missing is the the long list of bad news from the EU which regularly occurred when we were in. We had a taste of that in the Covid fiasco when Van der Leyen demanded all our AZ jabs.
But currently were missing the £17 billion quid handed over in times of austerity, the keep Germany's lights on diktat on pool gas resources, the dont upset Putin schtick in Ukraine we would have been tied in with via EU foreign policies, lots more immigration, and all the daily low level bollocks which just pissed people off.
The news cycle to date has mostly been one way, the polls are simply reflecting that, throw in the reality of what we have missed out on and they wont be showing those results.
Well I can see your opinion is indeed set in stone.
'Long whine' is good. As though that would persuade anyone against their will.
My opinions not set in stone, there have been some uncomfortable adjustments as a result of Brexit but the country isnt falling apart because of it. Covid and Putin have had much bigger impacts.
And as for the whining, the vote was almost 7 years ago, I prefer to look forward rather than cling on to a non existent past, you and the League of European Empire Loyalists still have your chance to seek to rejoin Nirvana. Maybe you could advance some positive arguments next time,
How is "better off in than out" not a positive argument?
It would have been, if only the Remain campaign had bothered to make it.
Labour's lead is gradually coming down so swingback is occurring and will continue through to Election 24 but the mid-term lead became so great that they should still have a 5-10% lead on polling day IMO.
Touch and go whether they can pull off a majority with a 5-10% lead but with tactical voting and SNP imploding "opp north" I think they will manage to get a small 1-20 seat majority.
Interesting that Keith remains really rather unpopular for a LOTO at a time when the government itself is deeply unpopular and that remains the one caveat in all of this.
The Labour lead at the local elections will be interesting. If it's only single figures it would be slightly worrying for the party.
With much more tactical voting intention this time round the key measure in the locals will be the combined LLG score. Note that’s up by 1 point in the quoted poll.
Labour's lead is gradually coming down so swingback is occurring and will continue through to Election 24 but the mid-term lead became so great that they should still have a 5-10% lead on polling day IMO.
Touch and go whether they can pull off a majority with a 5-10% lead but with tactical voting and SNP imploding "opp north" I think they will manage to get a small 1-20 seat majority.
Interesting that Keith remains really rather unpopular for a LOTO at a time when the government itself is deeply unpopular and that remains the one caveat in all of this.
the big battle is the no shows
can Sunak get the pissed off Tories to come out and vote in spite of themselves and is mowing the lawn more interesting than voting SKS for lLabourites
Indeed. Sir Keir having only 48% satisfaction and as much as 45% dissatisfaction amongst voters currently intending to vote Labour is the biggest sign I've seen in recent months of the Labour lead being soft. This may, of course, be linked to the lead in this poll being 5+ points bigger than the current average.
- firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer
In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.
So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…
As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).
So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!
Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.
Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.
The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.
The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)
Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
LOL if the majority in the country voted to leave who are you to tell them theyre wrong ?
The majority of the country now think they were wrong. Who are you to tell us that our opinions were set in stone back in 2016 ?
Oh really, are you that naive ?
The current polls simply reflect a long whine from remianers blaming everything they can think of on Brexit, often when it has nothing to do with it.
What is missing is the the long list of bad news from the EU which regularly occurred when we were in. We had a taste of that in the Covid fiasco when Van der Leyen demanded all our AZ jabs.
But currently were missing the £17 billion quid handed over in times of austerity, the keep Germany's lights on diktat on pool gas resources, the dont upset Putin schtick in Ukraine we would have been tied in with via EU foreign policies, lots more immigration, and all the daily low level bollocks which just pissed people off.
The news cycle to date has mostly been one way, the polls are simply reflecting that, throw in the reality of what we have missed out on and they wont be showing those results.
Well I can see your opinion is indeed set in stone.
'Long whine' is good. As though that would persuade anyone against their will.
My opinions not set in stone, there have been some uncomfortable adjustments as a result of Brexit but the country isnt falling apart because of it. Covid and Putin have had much bigger impacts.
And as for the whining, the vote was almost 7 years ago, I prefer to look forward rather than cling on to a non existent past, you and the League of European Empire Loyalists still have your chance to seek to rejoin Nirvana. Maybe you could advance some positive arguments next time,
How is "better off in than out" not a positive argument?
It would have been, if only the Remain campaign had bothered to make it.
We heard little else from them.
LOL. "Worse out than in", although mathematically equivalent to "better in than out", is very different emotionally. I seem to remember we've already had this discussion in recent days.
The Lib Dems polled a high of 15% after the local elections last year. Will they do as well this year, better, or worse?
Worse, but only marginally. I think they'll top out at 14%, post 10-13% for the next year, and then end up on 14-15% at the next GE, which will net them a reasonable (but disappointing) 6 to 12 gains at the General.
They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.
The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.
You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.
Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.
Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.
Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."
Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
As it happens Grey Squirrels are largely urban animals whereas Red ones are rural. If there are any squirrel lovers on here-seems unlikely as most favour the gas chambers-I saw a black one on Cap Ferrat crossing the appropriately named Rue Somerset Maugham.
I took a long look round and eventually saw quite a few. Jet black but otherwise quite similar to the Red. I asked around and it seems that there's a colony of them which live around the forests in that area.
Fortunately for them the wealthy burghers of Cap Ferrat seem happy to live and let live.
There are loads of black squirrels round my way. It's fun seeing a black and grey 'playing' together. (I put 'playing' in quotes because I've little idea if they were playing, fighting, or performing some form of weird sciurine mating ritual...)
If they mate presumably the progeny would come out in a rather nice panzer grey.
‘Rather nice panzer’. Not a common phrase!
Incidentally grey squirrels were apparently introduced in the 1890’s and the 11th Duke of Bedford thought they were an attractive addition to the countryside, so gave them ….presumably in at least pairs ….. to other landed gents.
- firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer
In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.
So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…
Maybe the checks re not being done as efficiently as they could be, but the simple truth is the checks are entirely due to Brexit - No Brexit no checks required.
I must have missed the US and Australia joining the EU.
I refer you to my comment about efficiency - The US & Oz are still being checked albeit using the e-gates. Prior to Brexit they were also being checked but UK was not. I dont know why UK can not use e-gates - does anyone out there know (with facts not opinionated rhetoric?)
The UK was being checked.
As to why to UK can’t use automated gates it’s the EU digging their heels in to make a visible point to UK travellers.
Essentially early on in the negotiations the UK said “why don’t we both agree to use the automated gates. It’s easy and makes everyone better off”
The EU said no. Because… reasons
The UK then said “Whatever as a gesture of goodwill (and because we believe that easy travel makes us better off) we will allow it unilaterally”
Late in the negotiations the UK then said “Look why don’t you throw in use of the automated gates as it makes everyone better off”
The EU said “what will you give us in return for that? You’ve already opened your gates unilaterally so that doesn’t count”
So because the EU don’t understand the concept of a win-win negotiation where sometimes you give something that costs them nothing but makes the other side better off we have ended up with the present pointless frustration.
Leaving aside the EU tantruming and inability to finish their system on time, does not ETIAS for UK citizens eventually apply from 2024?
They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.
The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.
You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.
Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.
Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.
Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."
Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
Might help with the deer problem in the UK. And the badgers.
Casino Royale's objections to eating venison notwithstanding, I don't see that there is a deer problem. Just increase the cull numbers and let people hunt and eat them. I'd far rather a deer problem than a wolf one. The idea of reintroducing them is deeply stupid.
Which is fine but we are not doing the cull, eat and hunt.
My point is that we should not be blaming overzealous Germans or vindictive French or lazy Spanish (fill in your own opinions as necessary) for passport checking. This is a direct result of Brexit. It didnt have to be this way because 'get Brexit done' took precedence over 'making Brexit work'. But this is what we have got.
Politicians should stop trying to blame everyone and everything for why it doesn't work - and instead do something about it. Like negotiate with compromise not bluster.
And you are missing the point that the checks *always happened*
They have just thrown some grit in the process
No, we have.
Not as much as they have.
For example it is very very quick to enter the US now.
That depends on when and where you are entering. But it can definitely be quicker than it was, that is for sure.
The issue with the EU is to do with FoM. It is a benefit of membership or of specific treaty. If we want a version of it, we need to negotiate it specifically. When you say you want to be treated as a third country, then that is what you get.
My guess is that now that the grown-ups are in charge here, the EU may be more inclined to discuss this - especially as its nationals are getting caught in the ferry queues because there are no eGates at ports. The approach that Johnson and Frost took to the negotiating process was pretty much guaranteed to get the worst possible results.
FoM about the right to be treated equivalent to a domestic citizen not about entry rules (although that might come as a side benefit)
Freedom of movement is integral to equality of treatment: when entering another EU member state all EU citizens enjoy exactly the same rights as its nationals, so, for example, access to eGates and no time limit for staying (for as long as you can support yourself).
Yes - but eGates are a marginal benefit of FoM not central by any means. And access to the eGates is given independent of FoM
eGates sounds like a rather concerning merger of Microsoft and Apple.
They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.
The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.
You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.
Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.
Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.
Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."
Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
As it happens Grey Squirrels are largely urban animals whereas Red ones are rural. If there are any squirrel lovers on here-seems unlikely as most favour the gas chambers-I saw a black one on Cap Ferrat crossing the appropriately named Rue Somerset Maugham.
I took a long look round and eventually saw quite a few. Jet black but otherwise quite similar to the Red. I asked around and it seems that there's a colony of them which live around the forests in that area.
Fortunately for them the wealthy burghers of Cap Ferrat seem happy to live and let live.
There are loads of black squirrels round my way. It's fun seeing a black and grey 'playing' together. (I put 'playing' in quotes because I've little idea if they were playing, fighting, or performing some form of weird sciurine mating ritual...)
If they mate presumably the progeny would come out in a rather nice panzer grey.
Mendel says hi...
I think it is a single genetic variation so there may not be any graduation.
Are we totally sure that the black squirrels arem't an example of industrial melanism?*
(*Which, by the way, is a fascinating story of scientific fraud, when you look deep into it. See "Of Moths and Men" for more info.
There are three options for dealing with border queues to the EU (1) stop travelling (2) take your chances with the delays, cancellations and extra cost in the full knowledge that it used to be much better and it didn't need to be like this (3) negotiate a new agreement with the EU to bring the UK closer to where it was before and to the EU.
As (2) is not likely to go away, I suspect governments will want to explore (3).
Hasn't Portugal already implemented 3? Because, you know, they value our tourists?
Individual countries have always had the ability to implement eGates, and to treat EEA and UK citizens equally. Portugal announced their intention to roll out the gates at all major airports last year. When I flew to Rome in September, they had them too. In Austria in March, the gates were installed (and the signs included the British flag) but the official apologised that they were not yet working for British passport holders.
The reality is that eGates are being implemented at all major airports across Europe, and they will (largely) treat EEA and UK passport holders equally.
This is a spectactular non-issue, except in places where people travel by car (Dover) or where space for eGates is limited, such as railway stations.
The Lib Dems polled a high of 15% after the local elections last year. Will they do as well this year, better, or worse?
I think better. They seem to be working harder, and the Tory vote/turnout will be very depressed. So I think there will be some good headlinesfor the Lib Dems.
The Lib Dems polled a high of 15% after the local elections last year. Will they do as well this year, better, or worse?
I think better. They seem to be working harder, and the Tory vote/turnout will be very depressed. So I think there will be some good headlinesfor the Lib Dems.
- firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer
In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.
So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…
As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).
So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!
Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.
Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.
The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.
The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)
Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
LOL if the majority in the country voted to leave who are you to tell them theyre wrong ?
The majority of the country now think they were wrong. Who are you to tell us that our opinions were set in stone back in 2016 ?
Oh really, are you that naive ?
The current polls simply reflect a long whine from remianers blaming everything they can think of on Brexit, often when it has nothing to do with it.
What is missing is the the long list of bad news from the EU which regularly occurred when we were in. We had a taste of that in the Covid fiasco when Van der Leyen demanded all our AZ jabs.
But currently were missing the £17 billion quid handed over in times of austerity, the keep Germany's lights on diktat on pool gas resources, the dont upset Putin schtick in Ukraine we would have been tied in with via EU foreign policies, lots more immigration, and all the daily low level bollocks which just pissed people off.
The news cycle to date has mostly been one way, the polls are simply reflecting that, throw in the reality of what we have missed out on and they wont be showing those results.
Well I can see your opinion is indeed set in stone.
'Long whine' is good. As though that would persuade anyone against their will.
My opinions not set in stone, there have been some uncomfortable adjustments as a result of Brexit but the country isnt falling apart because of it. Covid and Putin have had much bigger impacts.
And as for the whining, the vote was almost 7 years ago, I prefer to look forward rather than cling on to a non existent past, you and the League of European Empire Loyalists still have your chance to seek to rejoin Nirvana. Maybe you could advance some positive arguments next time,
How is "better off in than out" not a positive argument?
It would have been, if only the Remain campaign had bothered to make it.
We heard little else from them.
LOL. "Worse out than in", although mathematically equivalent to "better in than out", is very different emotionally. I seem to remember we've already had this discussion in recent days.
We have - and your 'point' hasn't got any better. It's inane. Staying in the EU was the status quo. Same old same old. You can't market this as the ticket to a thrilling new life.
"Vote Remain. Let's carry on as we are. It's gonna be a blast!"
C'mon.
What you can do is what was done - stress that leaving would make us poorer and weaker. Which has duly happened, hence the consensus it was a mistake.
The Eurostar is 5x more inconvenient than it was pre-Br*x*t.
They have erected a whole new set of gates at STP and also GdN and you have to be there hours before the off time instead of around 40-50mins as per hitherto.
My point is that we should not be blaming overzealous Germans or vindictive French or lazy Spanish (fill in your own opinions as necessary) for passport checking. This is a direct result of Brexit. It didnt have to be this way because 'get Brexit done' took precedence over 'making Brexit work'. But this is what we have got.
Politicians should stop trying to blame everyone and everything for why it doesn't work - and instead do something about it. Like negotiate with compromise not bluster.
And you are missing the point that the checks *always happened*
They have just thrown some grit in the process
No, we have.
Not as much as they have.
For example it is very very quick to enter the US now.
That depends on when and where you are entering. But it can definitely be quicker than it was, that is for sure.
The issue with the EU is to do with FoM. It is a benefit of membership or of specific treaty. If we want a version of it, we need to negotiate it specifically. When you say you want to be treated as a third country, then that is what you get.
My guess is that now that the grown-ups are in charge here, the EU may be more inclined to discuss this - especially as its nationals are getting caught in the ferry queues because there are no eGates at ports. The approach that Johnson and Frost took to the negotiating process was pretty much guaranteed to get the worst possible results.
FoM about the right to be treated equivalent to a domestic citizen not about entry rules (although that might come as a side benefit)
Freedom of movement is integral to equality of treatment: when entering another EU member state all EU citizens enjoy exactly the same rights as its nationals, so, for example, access to eGates and no time limit for staying (for as long as you can support yourself).
Yes - but eGates are a marginal benefit of FoM not central by any means. And access to the eGates is given independent of FoM
eGates sounds like a rather concerning merger of Microsoft and Apple.
They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.
The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.
You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.
Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.
Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.
Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."
Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
Might help with the deer problem in the UK. And the badgers.
Casino Royale's objections to eating venison notwithstanding, I don't see that there is a deer problem. Just increase the cull numbers and let people hunt and eat them. I'd far rather a deer problem than a wolf one. The idea of reintroducing them is deeply stupid.
Which is fine but we are not doing the cull, eat and hunt.
Problem with game is the shot. That is, I love all game and I have often wondered at the lack of availability more broadly but for it to take over mass-market wise eg Aldi can't be selling food to people which they can break their teeth on.
And it's an insoluble problem because if you farm, say, pheasants, then you take away the wild element and hence it becomes like a stringy chicken. Plus people still shoot zillions of them so you are back where you started. Same with venison.
The Lib Dems polled a high of 15% after the local elections last year. Will they do as well this year, better, or worse?
I think better. They seem to be working harder, and the Tory vote/turnout will be very depressed. So I think there will be some good headlinesfor the Lib Dems.
I hope so, bearing in mind I made a very stupid (only £5) bet with hyufd which based upon the evidence I was likely to lose.
The last few polls has them ticking up. Previously as soon as that looked like happening they came back down again.
They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.
The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.
You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.
Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.
Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.
Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."
Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
Might help with the deer problem in the UK. And the badgers.
Casino Royale's objections to eating venison notwithstanding, I don't see that there is a deer problem. Just increase the cull numbers and let people hunt and eat them. I'd far rather a deer problem than a wolf one. The idea of reintroducing them is deeply stupid.
Deer in high numbers destroy habitats and prevent tree regeneration. I thought we wanted more trees these days?
Povlsen et al have the right idea in Glen Feshie. Having been there in the early 1990s and again recently, the difference a zero tolerance policy has made is extraordinary. A new forest is springing up. And not just the Pines and Birch, also the (currently rare) upland Willows.
In England, the decline of the nightingale is put down to the rise of deer, especially the muntjac, that break through the dense understory that nightingales require.
There are three options for dealing with border queues to the EU (1) stop travelling (2) take your chances with the delays, cancellations and extra cost in the full knowledge that it used to be much better and it didn't need to be like this (3) negotiate a new agreement with the EU to bring the UK closer to where it was before and to the EU.
As (2) is not likely to go away, I suspect governments will want to explore (3).
Hasn't Portugal already implemented 3? Because, you know, they value our tourists?
Doubt it. Portugal has to implement Schengen rules like everyone else. In any case EU countries see this as a UK problem, while they can travel freely amongst themselves.
- firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer
In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.
So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…
As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).
So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!
Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.
Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.
The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.
The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)
Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
LOL if the majority in the country voted to leave who are you to tell them theyre wrong ?
The majority of the country now think they were wrong. Who are you to tell us that our opinions were set in stone back in 2016 ?
Oh really, are you that naive ?
The current polls simply reflect a long whine from remianers blaming everything they can think of on Brexit, often when it has nothing to do with it.
What is missing is the the long list of bad news from the EU which regularly occurred when we were in. We had a taste of that in the Covid fiasco when Van der Leyen demanded all our AZ jabs.
But currently were missing the £17 billion quid handed over in times of austerity, the keep Germany's lights on diktat on pool gas resources, the dont upset Putin schtick in Ukraine we would have been tied in with via EU foreign policies, lots more immigration, and all the daily low level bollocks which just pissed people off.
The news cycle to date has mostly been one way, the polls are simply reflecting that, throw in the reality of what we have missed out on and they wont be showing those results.
Well I can see your opinion is indeed set in stone.
'Long whine' is good. As though that would persuade anyone against their will.
My opinions not set in stone, there have been some uncomfortable adjustments as a result of Brexit but the country isnt falling apart because of it. Covid and Putin have had much bigger impacts.
And as for the whining, the vote was almost 7 years ago, I prefer to look forward rather than cling on to a non existent past, you and the League of European Empire Loyalists still have your chance to seek to rejoin Nirvana. Maybe you could advance some positive arguments next time,
How is "better off in than out" not a positive argument?
It would have been, if only the Remain campaign had bothered to make it.
We heard little else from them.
LOL. "Worse out than in", although mathematically equivalent to "better in than out", is very different emotionally. I seem to remember we've already had this discussion in recent days.
We have - and your 'point' hasn't got any better. It's inane. Staying in the EU was the status quo. Same old same old. You can't market this as the ticket to a thrilling new life.
"Vote Remain. Let's carry on as we are. It's gonna be a blast!"
C'mon.
What you can do is what was done - stress that leaving would make us poorer and weaker. Which has duly happened, hence the consensus it was a mistake.
The bit in bold says it all. The Remain campaign was negative and argued "worse out than in" not "better in than out" - if you admit as much, why are you disagreeing with me? We agree!
My point is that we should not be blaming overzealous Germans or vindictive French or lazy Spanish (fill in your own opinions as necessary) for passport checking. This is a direct result of Brexit. It didnt have to be this way because 'get Brexit done' took precedence over 'making Brexit work'. But this is what we have got.
Politicians should stop trying to blame everyone and everything for why it doesn't work - and instead do something about it. Like negotiate with compromise not bluster.
And you are missing the point that the checks *always happened*
They have just thrown some grit in the process
No, we have.
Not as much as they have.
For example it is very very quick to enter the US now.
That depends on when and where you are entering. But it can definitely be quicker than it was, that is for sure.
The issue with the EU is to do with FoM. It is a benefit of membership or of specific treaty. If we want a version of it, we need to negotiate it specifically. When you say you want to be treated as a third country, then that is what you get.
My guess is that now that the grown-ups are in charge here, the EU may be more inclined to discuss this - especially as its nationals are getting caught in the ferry queues because there are no eGates at ports. The approach that Johnson and Frost took to the negotiating process was pretty much guaranteed to get the worst possible results.
FoM about the right to be treated equivalent to a domestic citizen not about entry rules (although that might come as a side benefit)
Freedom of movement is integral to equality of treatment: when entering another EU member state all EU citizens enjoy exactly the same rights as its nationals, so, for example, access to eGates and no time limit for staying (for as long as you can support yourself).
Yes - but eGates are a marginal benefit of FoM not central by any means. And access to the eGates is given independent of FoM
eGates sounds like a rather concerning merger of Microsoft and Apple.
My point is that we should not be blaming overzealous Germans or vindictive French or lazy Spanish (fill in your own opinions as necessary) for passport checking. This is a direct result of Brexit. It didnt have to be this way because 'get Brexit done' took precedence over 'making Brexit work'. But this is what we have got.
Politicians should stop trying to blame everyone and everything for why it doesn't work - and instead do something about it. Like negotiate with compromise not bluster.
And you are missing the point that the checks *always happened*
They have just thrown some grit in the process
No, we have.
Not as much as they have.
For example it is very very quick to enter the US now.
That depends on when and where you are entering. But it can definitely be quicker than it was, that is for sure.
The issue with the EU is to do with FoM. It is a benefit of membership or of specific treaty. If we want a version of it, we need to negotiate it specifically. When you say you want to be treated as a third country, then that is what you get.
My guess is that now that the grown-ups are in charge here, the EU may be more inclined to discuss this - especially as its nationals are getting caught in the ferry queues because there are no eGates at ports. The approach that Johnson and Frost took to the negotiating process was pretty much guaranteed to get the worst possible results.
FoM about the right to be treated equivalent to a domestic citizen not about entry rules (although that might come as a side benefit)
Freedom of movement is integral to equality of treatment: when entering another EU member state all EU citizens enjoy exactly the same rights as its nationals, so, for example, access to eGates and no time limit for staying (for as long as you can support yourself).
Yes - but eGates are a marginal benefit of FoM not central by any means. And access to the eGates is given independent of FoM
eGates sounds like a rather concerning merger of Microsoft and Apple.
I assume the "it only takes two seconds" lie is aimed at the angry people who don't travel abroad but want to stop the rest of us doing so.
Anyone with eyes and a brain knows it takes more than 2 seconds, as it too more than 2 seconds when you hit their border. Yet the right keep saying this guff.
They won't persuade people who are alive. So it must be reassurance lies for the elderly and angry ro protect their prescious Brexit from reality.
67 million people travelled to EU countries from the UK in 2021
If even a tenth of them were as pissed off as those trying to get into Nice in March when there was one person doing UK passports then come the next election Sunak and his bunch of 300 shits will be out on their ears.
I can only hope Starmer's silence is based on the George Carmen technique of lulling them into a false sense of well being before blasting them with all you've got.
67 million people didn’t travel from the UK to the EU
There are three options for dealing with border queues to the EU (1) stop travelling (2) take your chances with the delays, cancellations and extra cost in the full knowledge that it used to be much better and it didn't need to be like this (3) negotiate a new agreement with the EU to bring the UK closer to where it was before and to the EU.
As (2) is not likely to go away, I suspect governments will want to explore (3).
Hasn't Portugal already implemented 3? Because, you know, they value our tourists?
Individual countries have always had the ability to implement eGates, and to treat EEA and UK citizens equally. Portugal announced their intention to roll out the gates at all major airports last year. When I flew to Rome in September, they had them too. In Austria in March, the gates were installed (and the signs included the British flag) but the official apologised that they were not yet working for British passport holders.
The reality is that eGates are being implemented at all major airports across Europe, and they will (largely) treat EEA and UK passport holders equally.
This is a spectactular non-issue, except in places where people travel by car (Dover) or where space for eGates is limited, such as railway stations.
It will hopefully become a non-issue in two to three years for airline passengers. But millions of people use ferries to get to mainland Europe from the UK each year, so something will also need to be sorted on that front. Politically, there are going to be no solutions before the next general election without proactive UK government action. If I were a Brexiteer this is the issue I would be focusing on as it is so visible to everyone and so vexing for those caught up in it. Making it go away would be a huge win for the Brexiteers. Denial really isn't the way to do that.
My point is that we should not be blaming overzealous Germans or vindictive French or lazy Spanish (fill in your own opinions as necessary) for passport checking. This is a direct result of Brexit. It didnt have to be this way because 'get Brexit done' took precedence over 'making Brexit work'. But this is what we have got.
Politicians should stop trying to blame everyone and everything for why it doesn't work - and instead do something about it. Like negotiate with compromise not bluster.
And you are missing the point that the checks *always happened*
They have just thrown some grit in the process
No, we have.
Not as much as they have.
For example it is very very quick to enter the US now.
That depends on when and where you are entering. But it can definitely be quicker than it was, that is for sure.
The issue with the EU is to do with FoM. It is a benefit of membership or of specific treaty. If we want a version of it, we need to negotiate it specifically. When you say you want to be treated as a third country, then that is what you get.
My guess is that now that the grown-ups are in charge here, the EU may be more inclined to discuss this - especially as its nationals are getting caught in the ferry queues because there are no eGates at ports. The approach that Johnson and Frost took to the negotiating process was pretty much guaranteed to get the worst possible results.
FoM about the right to be treated equivalent to a domestic citizen not about entry rules (although that might come as a side benefit)
Freedom of Movement is about being able to move freely across borders actually.
That’s not the really value.
The issue in the UK was access to the non-contributory welfare state on the same terms as a UK citizen for example.
Yes but that is side effect not the main purpose of FoM, opposite to the way you have it, I think. In any case the social welfare condition only applies to EU members, not those outside of the EU that apply FoM through Schengen.
The Eurostar is 5x more inconvenient than it was pre-Br*x*t.
They have erected a whole new set of gates at STP and also GdN and you have to be there hours before the off time instead of around 40-50mins as per hitherto.
That makes Eurostar a pretty awful experience. I am due to travel there on my way to San Sebastian in two weeks time. I'm not looking forward to it.
There are three options for dealing with border queues to the EU (1) stop travelling (2) take your chances with the delays, cancellations and extra cost in the full knowledge that it used to be much better and it didn't need to be like this (3) negotiate a new agreement with the EU to bring the UK closer to where it was before and to the EU.
As (2) is not likely to go away, I suspect governments will want to explore (3).
Hasn't Portugal already implemented 3? Because, you know, they value our tourists?
Doubt it. Portugal has to implement Schengen rules like everyone else. In any case EU countries see this as a UK problem, while they can travel freely amongst themselves.
Portugal hasn't needed to agree anything with the EU, because there's nothing that prohibits EU countries from implementing eGates at their borders.
There are three options for dealing with border queues to the EU (1) stop travelling (2) take your chances with the delays, cancellations and extra cost in the full knowledge that it used to be much better and it didn't need to be like this (3) negotiate a new agreement with the EU to bring the UK closer to where it was before and to the EU.
As (2) is not likely to go away, I suspect governments will want to explore (3).
Hasn't Portugal already implemented 3? Because, you know, they value our tourists?
Doubt it. Portugal has to implement Schengen rules like everyone else. In any case EU countries see this as a UK problem, while they can travel freely amongst themselves.
They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.
The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.
You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.
Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.
Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.
Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."
Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
Might help with the deer problem in the UK. And the badgers.
Casino Royale's objections to eating venison notwithstanding, I don't see that there is a deer problem. Just increase the cull numbers and let people hunt and eat them. I'd far rather a deer problem than a wolf one. The idea of reintroducing them is deeply stupid.
Deer in high numbers destroy habitats and prevent tree regeneration. I thought we wanted more trees these days?
Povlsen et al have the right idea in Glen Feshie. Having been there in the early 1990s and again recently, the difference a zero tolerance policy has made is extraordinary. A new forest is springing up. And not just the Pines and Birch, also the (currently rare) upland Willows.
In England, the decline of the nightingale is put down to the rise of deer, especially the muntjac, that break through the dense understory that nightingales require.
Muntjac, something else introduced by the idle rich aka landed gentry, are a damn nuisance.
I assume the "it only takes two seconds" lie is aimed at the angry people who don't travel abroad but want to stop the rest of us doing so.
Anyone with eyes and a brain knows it takes more than 2 seconds, as it too more than 2 seconds when you hit their border. Yet the right keep saying this guff.
They won't persuade people who are alive. So it must be reassurance lies for the elderly and angry ro protect their prescious Brexit from reality.
67 million people travelled to EU countries from the UK in 2021
If even a tenth of them were as pissed off as those trying to get into Nice in March when there was one person doing UK passports then come the next election Sunak and his bunch of 300 shits will be out on their ears.
I can only hope Starmer's silence is based on the George Carmen technique of lulling them into a false sense of well being before blasting them with all you've got.
67 million people didn’t travel from the UK to the EU
Probably 67m journeys, not all by UK citizens
Elder son went four or five times, on business. Grandson-in-law (acting) went several times.
They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.
The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.
You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.
Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.
Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.
Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."
Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
Might help with the deer problem in the UK. And the badgers.
Casino Royale's objections to eating venison notwithstanding, I don't see that there is a deer problem. Just increase the cull numbers and let people hunt and eat them. I'd far rather a deer problem than a wolf one. The idea of reintroducing them is deeply stupid.
Deer in high numbers destroy habitats and prevent tree regeneration. I thought we wanted more trees these days?
Povlsen et al have the right idea in Glen Feshie. Having been there in the early 1990s and again recently, the difference a zero tolerance policy has made is extraordinary. A new forest is springing up. And not just the Pines and Birch, also the (currently rare) upland Willows.
In England, the decline of the nightingale is put down to the rise of deer, especially the muntjac, that break through the dense understory that nightingales require.
In Kent the rise of my stress levels is at least partly down to the massive herd of red deer in the hill above the vineyard, who make regular ventures down ever time the electric fence is on the blink.
- firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer
In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.
So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…
As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).
So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!
Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.
Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.
The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.
The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)
Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
LOL if the majority in the country voted to leave who are you to tell them theyre wrong ?
The majority of the country now think they were wrong. Who are you to tell us that our opinions were set in stone back in 2016 ?
Oh really, are you that naive ?
The current polls simply reflect a long whine from remianers blaming everything they can think of on Brexit, often when it has nothing to do with it.
What is missing is the the long list of bad news from the EU which regularly occurred when we were in. We had a taste of that in the Covid fiasco when Van der Leyen demanded all our AZ jabs.
But currently were missing the £17 billion quid handed over in times of austerity, the keep Germany's lights on diktat on pool gas resources, the dont upset Putin schtick in Ukraine we would have been tied in with via EU foreign policies, lots more immigration, and all the daily low level bollocks which just pissed people off.
The news cycle to date has mostly been one way, the polls are simply reflecting that, throw in the reality of what we have missed out on and they wont be showing those results.
Well I can see your opinion is indeed set in stone.
'Long whine' is good. As though that would persuade anyone against their will.
My opinions not set in stone, there have been some uncomfortable adjustments as a result of Brexit but the country isnt falling apart because of it. Covid and Putin have had much bigger impacts.
And as for the whining, the vote was almost 7 years ago, I prefer to look forward rather than cling on to a non existent past, you and the League of European Empire Loyalists still have your chance to seek to rejoin Nirvana. Maybe you could advance some positive arguments next time,
How is "better off in than out" not a positive argument?
It would have been, if only the Remain campaign had bothered to make it.
We heard little else from them.
LOL. "Worse out than in", although mathematically equivalent to "better in than out", is very different emotionally. I seem to remember we've already had this discussion in recent days.
We have - and your 'point' hasn't got any better. It's inane. Staying in the EU was the status quo. Same old same old. You can't market this as the ticket to a thrilling new life.
"Vote Remain. Let's carry on as we are. It's gonna be a blast!"
C'mon.
What you can do is what was done - stress that leaving would make us poorer and weaker. Which has duly happened, hence the consensus it was a mistake.
The bit in bold says it all. The Remain campaign was negative and argued "worse out than in" not "better in than out" - if you admit as much, why are you disagreeing with me? We agree!
What would be better than trolling - which I have limited patience for these days as you know - is if you can provide a concrete example of a big positive uplifting argument for staying in the EU that the Remain campaign should have made but didn't.
Like a lot of Labour voters, I'd say that banning Corbyn from standing was morally wrong but electorally right, and of course Starmer would say that Labour has a moral obligation to win. I'm not a "the ends justify the means" person, but nor am I going to turn against Starmer over something as trivial as this. Anyone who would probably turned against him a long time ago.
There are three options for dealing with border queues to the EU (1) stop travelling (2) take your chances with the delays, cancellations and extra cost in the full knowledge that it used to be much better and it didn't need to be like this (3) negotiate a new agreement with the EU to bring the UK closer to where it was before and to the EU.
As (2) is not likely to go away, I suspect governments will want to explore (3).
Hasn't Portugal already implemented 3? Because, you know, they value our tourists?
Doubt it. Portugal has to implement Schengen rules like everyone else. In any case EU countries see this as a UK problem, while they can travel freely amongst themselves.
Portugal hasn't needed to agree anything with the EU, because there's nothing that prohibits EU countries from implementing eGates at their borders.
But the Portuguese still have to ensure that UK passports are stamped on entry and exit. This is made clear in UK Foreign Office travel advice:
My point is that we should not be blaming overzealous Germans or vindictive French or lazy Spanish (fill in your own opinions as necessary) for passport checking. This is a direct result of Brexit. It didnt have to be this way because 'get Brexit done' took precedence over 'making Brexit work'. But this is what we have got.
Politicians should stop trying to blame everyone and everything for why it doesn't work - and instead do something about it. Like negotiate with compromise not bluster.
Nah. Brexit allowed it but didn't require it.
As for your last point, Sunak's been doing a decent job of that lately.
On your first point - disagree - EU has a duty to protect its external borders - and UK is on the outside now.
On your second point - early days but yes - things have improved recently.
There are three options for dealing with border queues to the EU (1) stop travelling (2) take your chances with the delays, cancellations and extra cost in the full knowledge that it used to be much better and it didn't need to be like this (3) negotiate a new agreement with the EU to bring the UK closer to where it was before and to the EU.
As (2) is not likely to go away, I suspect governments will want to explore (3).
Hasn't Portugal already implemented 3? Because, you know, they value our tourists?
Doubt it. Portugal has to implement Schengen rules like everyone else. In any case EU countries see this as a UK problem, while they can travel freely amongst themselves.
Portugal hasn't needed to agree anything with the EU, because there's nothing that prohibits EU countries from implementing eGates at their borders.
But the passports still need to be double stamped for UK citizens no? How much will the eGates reduce the delay?
There are three options for dealing with border queues to the EU (1) stop travelling (2) take your chances with the delays, cancellations and extra cost in the full knowledge that it used to be much better and it didn't need to be like this (3) negotiate a new agreement with the EU to bring the UK closer to where it was before and to the EU.
As (2) is not likely to go away, I suspect governments will want to explore (3).
Hasn't Portugal already implemented 3? Because, you know, they value our tourists?
Doubt it. Portugal has to implement Schengen rules like everyone else. In any case EU countries see this as a UK problem, while they can travel freely amongst themselves.
Portugal hasn't needed to agree anything with the EU, because there's nothing that prohibits EU countries from implementing eGates at their borders.
But the passports still need to be double stamped for UK citizens no? How much will the eGates reduce the delay?
It means passport control just has to do the stamping so there will be some reductions as the scanning will already have been done automatically.
There are three options for dealing with border queues to the EU (1) stop travelling (2) take your chances with the delays, cancellations and extra cost in the full knowledge that it used to be much better and it didn't need to be like this (3) negotiate a new agreement with the EU to bring the UK closer to where it was before and to the EU.
As (2) is not likely to go away, I suspect governments will want to explore (3).
Hasn't Portugal already implemented 3? Because, you know, they value our tourists?
Doubt it. Portugal has to implement Schengen rules like everyone else. In any case EU countries see this as a UK problem, while they can travel freely amongst themselves.
Portugal hasn't needed to agree anything with the EU, because there's nothing that prohibits EU countries from implementing eGates at their borders.
But the passports still need to be double stamped for UK citizens no? How much will the eGates reduce the delay?
No.
They need to be either stamped or electronically tracked.
There are three options for dealing with border queues to the EU (1) stop travelling (2) take your chances with the delays, cancellations and extra cost in the full knowledge that it used to be much better and it didn't need to be like this (3) negotiate a new agreement with the EU to bring the UK closer to where it was before and to the EU.
As (2) is not likely to go away, I suspect governments will want to explore (3).
Hasn't Portugal already implemented 3? Because, you know, they value our tourists?
Individual countries have always had the ability to implement eGates, and to treat EEA and UK citizens equally. Portugal announced their intention to roll out the gates at all major airports last year. When I flew to Rome in September, they had them too. In Austria in March, the gates were installed (and the signs included the British flag) but the official apologised that they were not yet working for British passport holders.
The reality is that eGates are being implemented at all major airports across Europe, and they will (largely) treat EEA and UK passport holders equally.
This is a spectactular non-issue, except in places where people travel by car (Dover) or where space for eGates is limited, such as railway stations.
In fact, my experience of some EU destinations (e.g. Canary Islands) is that e-gates are in place and most Brits have the right passports for them but many EU citizens do not. So we queue less than they do.
There are three options for dealing with border queues to the EU (1) stop travelling (2) take your chances with the delays, cancellations and extra cost in the full knowledge that it used to be much better and it didn't need to be like this (3) negotiate a new agreement with the EU to bring the UK closer to where it was before and to the EU.
As (2) is not likely to go away, I suspect governments will want to explore (3).
Hasn't Portugal already implemented 3? Because, you know, they value our tourists?
Doubt it. Portugal has to implement Schengen rules like everyone else. In any case EU countries see this as a UK problem, while they can travel freely amongst themselves.
Portugal hasn't needed to agree anything with the EU, because there's nothing that prohibits EU countries from implementing eGates at their borders.
But the passports still need to be double stamped for UK citizens no? How much will the eGates reduce the delay?
There are three options for dealing with border queues to the EU (1) stop travelling (2) take your chances with the delays, cancellations and extra cost in the full knowledge that it used to be much better and it didn't need to be like this (3) negotiate a new agreement with the EU to bring the UK closer to where it was before and to the EU.
As (2) is not likely to go away, I suspect governments will want to explore (3).
Hasn't Portugal already implemented 3? Because, you know, they value our tourists?
Doubt it. Portugal has to implement Schengen rules like everyone else. In any case EU countries see this as a UK problem, while they can travel freely amongst themselves.
Portugal hasn't needed to agree anything with the EU, because there's nothing that prohibits EU countries from implementing eGates at their borders.
But the passports still need to be double stamped for UK citizens no? How much will the eGates reduce the delay?
No.
They need to be either stamped or electronically tracked.
Not according to the Foreign Office:
Check your passport is stamped by the border officer when you enter and exit Portugal as a visitor. You can use the staffed immigration booths or, if you are aged 18 and over, the e-gates designated for UK and some other non-EU nationals. Hand your passport for stamping to the border officer after you have passed through the e-gate. You cannot use the e-gates to exit Portugal if you entered the Schengen area via another member state. Border guards use passport stamps to check you’re complying with the 90-day visa-free limit for short stays in the Schengen area. If relevant entry or exit stamps are not in your passport, a border officer may presume that you have overstayed your visa-free limit.
The Eurostar is 5x more inconvenient than it was pre-Br*x*t.
They have erected a whole new set of gates at STP and also GdN and you have to be there hours before the off time instead of around 40-50mins as per hitherto.
That makes Eurostar a pretty awful experience. I am due to travel there on my way to San Sebastian in two weeks time. I'm not looking forward to it.
Yeah, I pass through St Pancras quite often, and the queues for the Eurostar look horrendous every time.
It used to feel like a very elegant and simple way to travel abroad, a sign of a confident capital and an outward-looking nation. Now has a crappy parochial drabness, inefficient and glum - the glorious architecture housing it now serving to underline the decline to this point, like the shanty town T.E. Lawrence found in Krak des Chevaliers. Sad.
There are three options for dealing with border queues to the EU (1) stop travelling (2) take your chances with the delays, cancellations and extra cost in the full knowledge that it used to be much better and it didn't need to be like this (3) negotiate a new agreement with the EU to bring the UK closer to where it was before and to the EU.
As (2) is not likely to go away, I suspect governments will want to explore (3).
Hasn't Portugal already implemented 3? Because, you know, they value our tourists?
Doubt it. Portugal has to implement Schengen rules like everyone else. In any case EU countries see this as a UK problem, while they can travel freely amongst themselves.
Portugal hasn't needed to agree anything with the EU, because there's nothing that prohibits EU countries from implementing eGates at their borders.
But the passports still need to be double stamped for UK citizens no? How much will the eGates reduce the delay?
No.
They need to be either stamped or electronically tracked.
Not according to the Foreign Office:
Check your passport is stamped by the border officer when you enter and exit Portugal as a visitor. You can use the staffed immigration booths or, if you are aged 18 and over, the e-gates designated for UK and some other non-EU nationals. Hand your passport for stamping to the border officer after you have passed through the e-gate. You cannot use the e-gates to exit Portugal if you entered the Schengen area via another member state. Border guards use passport stamps to check you’re complying with the 90-day visa-free limit for short stays in the Schengen area. If relevant entry or exit stamps are not in your passport, a border officer may presume that you have overstayed your visa-free limit.
If you use the ePassport gates it generates an electronic trail which removes the need for a stamp. If you travel to Rome or Lisbon, you will use the gates and you will be fully compliant.
They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.
The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.
You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.
Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.
Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.
Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."
Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
Might help with the deer problem in the UK. And the badgers.
Casino Royale's objections to eating venison notwithstanding, I don't see that there is a deer problem. Just increase the cull numbers and let people hunt and eat them. I'd far rather a deer problem than a wolf one. The idea of reintroducing them is deeply stupid.
Deer in high numbers destroy habitats and prevent tree regeneration. I thought we wanted more trees these days?
Povlsen et al have the right idea in Glen Feshie. Having been there in the early 1990s and again recently, the difference a zero tolerance policy has made is extraordinary. A new forest is springing up. And not just the Pines and Birch, also the (currently rare) upland Willows.
I don't agree. Besides, the gratuitous felling of massive mature trees by beavers seems to be accepted with zen-like equanimity by the rewilding brigade. It's all a load of specious nonsense.
They are reintroducing a form of wildcat in the Cairngorms at the moment - everyone in the locality of the scheme is having to spay and tag their cats in case the newcomers take a shine to them and breed feral monsters. The things all but died out, due presumably to lack of food/habitat, so why it isn't considered cruel to release a load more to share a similar fate is beyond me.
The Eurostar is 5x more inconvenient than it was pre-Br*x*t.
They have erected a whole new set of gates at STP and also GdN and you have to be there hours before the off time instead of around 40-50mins as per hitherto.
That makes Eurostar a pretty awful experience. I am due to travel there on my way to San Sebastian in two weeks time. I'm not looking forward to it.
They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.
The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.
You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.
Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.
Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.
Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."
Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
Might help with the deer problem in the UK. And the badgers.
Casino Royale's objections to eating venison notwithstanding, I don't see that there is a deer problem. Just increase the cull numbers and let people hunt and eat them. I'd far rather a deer problem than a wolf one. The idea of reintroducing them is deeply stupid.
Deer in high numbers destroy habitats and prevent tree regeneration. I thought we wanted more trees these days?
Povlsen et al have the right idea in Glen Feshie. Having been there in the early 1990s and again recently, the difference a zero tolerance policy has made is extraordinary. A new forest is springing up. And not just the Pines and Birch, also the (currently rare) upland Willows.
I don't agree. Besides, the gratuitous felling of massive mature trees by beavers seems to be accepted with zen-like equanimity by the rewilding brigade. It's all a load of specious nonsense.
They are reintroducing a form of wildcat in the Cairngorms at the moment - everyone in the locality of the scheme is having to spay and tag their cats in case the newcomers take a shine to them and breed feral monsters. The things all but died out, due presumably to lack of food/habitat, so why it isn't considered cruel to release a load more to share a similar fate is beyond me.
I think they die out because of interbreeding with domestic cats.
Although beavers destroy mature trees they create habitat and don't mow the lot down like deer do to all the new growth.
- firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer
In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.
So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…
As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).
So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!
Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.
Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.
The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.
The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)
Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
LOL if the majority in the country voted to leave who are you to tell them theyre wrong ?
The majority of the country now think they were wrong. Who are you to tell us that our opinions were set in stone back in 2016 ?
Oh really, are you that naive ?
The current polls simply reflect a long whine from remianers blaming everything they can think of on Brexit, often when it has nothing to do with it.
What is missing is the the long list of bad news from the EU which regularly occurred when we were in. We had a taste of that in the Covid fiasco when Van der Leyen demanded all our AZ jabs.
But currently were missing the £17 billion quid handed over in times of austerity, the keep Germany's lights on diktat on pool gas resources, the dont upset Putin schtick in Ukraine we would have been tied in with via EU foreign policies, lots more immigration, and all the daily low level bollocks which just pissed people off.
The news cycle to date has mostly been one way, the polls are simply reflecting that, throw in the reality of what we have missed out on and they wont be showing those results.
Well I can see your opinion is indeed set in stone.
'Long whine' is good. As though that would persuade anyone against their will.
My opinions not set in stone, there have been some uncomfortable adjustments as a result of Brexit but the country isnt falling apart because of it. Covid and Putin have had much bigger impacts.
And as for the whining, the vote was almost 7 years ago, I prefer to look forward rather than cling on to a non existent past, you and the League of European Empire Loyalists still have your chance to seek to rejoin Nirvana. Maybe you could advance some positive arguments next time,
I have, regularly, since Brexit. The fact that I regard the original decision as a mistake doesn't mean I haven't been a proponent of managing it better.
Was it you who assured me that our car industry was going to be fine ? I seem to recall arguments with several ardent Brexiteers who were adamant that the transition to EVs wouldn't be a threat to UK manufacturing. We could have averted that.
Myself and @another_richard have spent about 10 years on this site warning the run down of UK manufacturing through governmental neglect was a major issue. I find it somewhat amusing that those who said we had were wrong are now doing a 189 degree turn becuase they want to use it for a Brexit argument.
As for the UK car industry its problems are nor Brexit related except at the margins, They are the usual issue of government neglect the Tories are as bad as Blair, supply chain weaknesses through chip availability, it's own shooting itself in the foot through confusing customers on power train and fuel systems. I suspect you will find I was not a big EV supporter as I couldnt see where we would be putting the infrastructure in in time, And still dont.
Oh, the old "the UK doesn't make anything anymore" canard, beloved of those on the far left and the reactionary right.
FYI, the UK is in the top ten manufacturing countries in the world with an annual output of £183 billion. Your understanding of this seems to be about as informed as your use of punctuation or the potential for EVs. The latter is unsurprising as you are clearly a reactionary, and reactionaries are rarely early adopters.
They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.
The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.
You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.
Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.
Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.
Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."
Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
Might help with the deer problem in the UK. And the badgers.
Casino Royale's objections to eating venison notwithstanding, I don't see that there is a deer problem. Just increase the cull numbers and let people hunt and eat them. I'd far rather a deer problem than a wolf one. The idea of reintroducing them is deeply stupid.
Deer in high numbers destroy habitats and prevent tree regeneration. I thought we wanted more trees these days?
Povlsen et al have the right idea in Glen Feshie. Having been there in the early 1990s and again recently, the difference a zero tolerance policy has made is extraordinary. A new forest is springing up. And not just the Pines and Birch, also the (currently rare) upland Willows.
I don't agree. Besides, the gratuitous felling of massive mature trees by beavers seems to be accepted with zen-like equanimity by the rewilding brigade. It's all a load of specious nonsense.
They are reintroducing a form of wildcat in the Cairngorms at the moment - everyone in the locality of the scheme is having to spay and tag their cats in case the newcomers take a shine to them and breed feral monsters. The things all but died out, due presumably to lack of food/habitat, so why it isn't considered cruel to release a load more to share a similar fate is beyond me.
A scale thing surely, c.85k red deer v. under 1k beavers? Besides, beavers are culled also.
NEW If/when he wins an election, it is likely @Keir_Starmer will be the least popular opposition leader to win a majority in recent history - normally (Blair/Cameron) you have to be well above net zero - he's on minus 20 for satisfaction
- firstly capacity: the EU for bullshit reasons have said that the UK can’t use the automated gates (unlike South Korea, Australia or the US for example). That massively reduces the available capacity - from 10-20 gates to, usually, 2-4 officers - The individual checks are marginally longer. The electronic check is the same as pre-Brexit but then the officer flips through every page of the passport and stamps. I’d guesstimate it’s about 30 seconds extra per passport - We share a queue with countries that are deemed high risk so their passport checks and officer discussions take longer
In the case of Dover it’s a combination of several factors: (i) holiday demand; (ii) bad weather delaying sailings; (iii) staff shortages/work to rule by French officers who are grumbling about pay & conditions; and (iv) the elongated time required - especially with coaches where school kids have to get off the coach to be checked rather than a single teacher being able to take the passports down as a single bundle.
So part of it is normal stuff, and part of it is the French being silly and petty. So it’s not Brexit per se, but…
As I see it, Brexit allows the French to be silly and petty, and the French have chosen to take that opportunity (they weren't forced to).
So people who are blaming Brexit for this are essentially saying that the French should be expected to be silly and petty, which is rather xenophobic.
It's not as if the French were slow to turn down an opportunity to be pains in the arse at borders when we were in the EU. Sure, it was more difficult. But the argument 'if only we would do everything the French want us to then we will be able to get through borders more quickly' seems to me to fall into a 'too high a price to pay' category.
Operation Stack has been extant since 1987 - so it’s not as if the French being French, hasn’t been happening every few months for decades!
Yes, stamping of passports takes a little extra time, but the major factors are the work-to-rule by the border staff, and the recent weather.
The thing is with nearly everything Brexit is that it is nearly always another issue, but Brexit tips it over the edge unnecessarily and then people say 'Ah but it isn't Brexit it is this'.
Yes there have been queues at ports before. I have been held up on the tunnel for hours twice before Brexit, so yes there will always be times when it falls apart because of something or other, but those times are made worse by Brexit and there will be times when before Brexit it was just coping and now it won't.
The same applies to the impact on businesses. The cry goes out that the company was probably going to collapse anyway, they were barely making any profit for this reason or that. But Brexit doesn't help if it tips them over the edge and of course this applies to the more successful companies as well. Yes they will carry on being profitable, but less so.
The exclamation that it is always another reason and not Brexit is often/usually not true, both contribute. If you eliminate Brexit, it might just be you get by regardless of the other disaster (weather, overbooking, working to rule, etc)
Of course there will be times that Brexit has nothing to do with it at all and Brexit gets blamed (that's life), but equally there are examples where Brexit is not just contributory but entirely the reason for a failure, so that cuts both ways.
Absolutely. And the other point to make is that unlike COVID and Ukraine, Brexit was entirely self-inflicted and unnecessary. It is the most egregious example of a government acting contrary to what was in the country’s best interests. The Tories should never be forgiven for it.
LOL if the majority in the country voted to leave who are you to tell them theyre wrong ?
The majority of the country now think they were wrong. Who are you to tell us that our opinions were set in stone back in 2016 ?
Oh really, are you that naive ?
The current polls simply reflect a long whine from remianers blaming everything they can think of on Brexit, often when it has nothing to do with it.
What is missing is the the long list of bad news from the EU which regularly occurred when we were in. We had a taste of that in the Covid fiasco when Van der Leyen demanded all our AZ jabs.
But currently were missing the £17 billion quid handed over in times of austerity, the keep Germany's lights on diktat on pool gas resources, the dont upset Putin schtick in Ukraine we would have been tied in with via EU foreign policies, lots more immigration, and all the daily low level bollocks which just pissed people off.
The news cycle to date has mostly been one way, the polls are simply reflecting that, throw in the reality of what we have missed out on and they wont be showing those results.
Well I can see your opinion is indeed set in stone.
'Long whine' is good. As though that would persuade anyone against their will.
My opinions not set in stone, there have been some uncomfortable adjustments as a result of Brexit but the country isnt falling apart because of it. Covid and Putin have had much bigger impacts.
And as for the whining, the vote was almost 7 years ago, I prefer to look forward rather than cling on to a non existent past, you and the League of European Empire Loyalists still have your chance to seek to rejoin Nirvana. Maybe you could advance some positive arguments next time,
I have, regularly, since Brexit. The fact that I regard the original decision as a mistake doesn't mean I haven't been a proponent of managing it better.
Was it you who assured me that our car industry was going to be fine ? I seem to recall arguments with several ardent Brexiteers who were adamant that the transition to EVs wouldn't be a threat to UK manufacturing. We could have averted that.
Myself and @another_richard have spent about 10 years on this site warning the run down of UK manufacturing through governmental neglect was a major issue. I find it somewhat amusing that those who said we had were wrong are now doing a 189 degree turn becuase they want to use it for a Brexit argument.
As for the UK car industry its problems are nor Brexit related except at the margins, They are the usual issue of government neglect the Tories are as bad as Blair, supply chain weaknesses through chip availability, it's own shooting itself in the foot through confusing customers on power train and fuel systems. I suspect you will find I was not a big EV supporter as I couldnt see where we would be putting the infrastructure in in time, And still dont.
Oh, the old "the UK doesn't make anything anymore" canard, beloved of those on the far left and the reactionary right.
FYI, the UK is in the top ten manufacturing countries in the world with an annual output of £183 billion. Your understanding of this seems to be about as informed as your use of punctuation or the potential for EVs. The latter is unsurprising as you are clearly a reactionary, and reactionaries are rarely early adopters.
NEW If/when he wins an election, it is likely @Keir_Starmer will be the least popular opposition leader to win a majority in recent history - normally (Blair/Cameron) you have to be well above net zero - he's on minus 20 for satisfaction
They shouldn’t be protected at all. That is the point.
I love seeing squirrel (grey in my area) and I've never understood why we should be actively intervening to kill one type of squirrel to protect another. Because they're foreign? Prejudice agasinst foreign humans is bad enough, but who needs ecoxenophobia?
Wonderful animals. So bright and every one with their own personality. I feed them daily when I'm here. They are quite the most interesting and ingenious animals I've ever interacted with. I find them much more interesting than the Reds. My cousin in a nature writer and she lathes the idea of 'native species' which is a big thing in Scotland. She thinks it's typical of the Nationalist mentality!
Sorry but these comments are just stupid and ignorant and I would certainly have expected better from Nick even if not from you. Your cousin sounds like a moron.
The reason that most sensible naturalists and wildlife experts have a problem with some non native species is because they drive native species to extinction. Ecosystems build up over millennia to a point of natural balance. When you then suddenly introduce a non native species it disrupts that balance and can often lead similar native species being pushed into danger. There are hundreds of examples of this since man started transporting animals around the world - cats in Australia being an obvious example.
You might as well claim that there is nothing wrong with white Europeans wiping out the indigenous peoples of North America 'because we were more interesting'. Nationalism has feck all to do with it. Horse Chestnuts and rabbits are both non native species to the British Isles but they do not damage the native populations of other animals and plants so there is no problem with them. If a species of plant or animal is harmless then it is not an issue. But diversity of species is what is matters. Grey squirrels have driven reds to extinction in many parts of the British Isles. Hence the reason they need to be controlled.
So that nature conforms with your idea of what is right.
Thank goodness you're only an internet numpty rather than a billionaire donor who could influence government policy.
I'm slightly surprised that Richard's (quite eloquently put) position is being seen as anything but the mainstream opinion it is. Humans nowadays usually try very hard to avoid introducing non-native species which could wipe out native species - this isn't out of an idea of 'what is right' but in an attempt to avoid yet another extinction.
Try to import a non-native species into New Zealand and see where it gets you.
Of course, all points of view are contestable, but the point of view that invasive species such as grey squirrels and Japanese knotweed in Great Britain and, say, rats on South Georgia should be controlled isn't really controversial.
So you are a wolf-introducer, then?
Well first of all what a wonderful category of thing to be. "What do you do? I'm a wolf-introducer."
Wolf introduction is a slightly different matter - that's not necessarily protecting existing species but reintroducing ones which have gone. But to me the case for doing so (to manage the population of deer, which is inimical to the population of birch forest, which is detrimental to other native species) seems stronger than the case for not doing so. In a controlled way, at certain locations. It's not a straightforward decision, certainly.
Might help with the deer problem in the UK. And the badgers.
Casino Royale's objections to eating venison notwithstanding, I don't see that there is a deer problem. Just increase the cull numbers and let people hunt and eat them. I'd far rather a deer problem than a wolf one. The idea of reintroducing them is deeply stupid.
Deer in high numbers destroy habitats and prevent tree regeneration. I thought we wanted more trees these days?
Povlsen et al have the right idea in Glen Feshie. Having been there in the early 1990s and again recently, the difference a zero tolerance policy has made is extraordinary. A new forest is springing up. And not just the Pines and Birch, also the (currently rare) upland Willows.
I don't agree. Besides, the gratuitous felling of massive mature trees by beavers seems to be accepted with zen-like equanimity by the rewilding brigade. It's all a load of specious nonsense.
They are reintroducing a form of wildcat in the Cairngorms at the moment - everyone in the locality of the scheme is having to spay and tag their cats in case the newcomers take a shine to them and breed feral monsters. The things all but died out, due presumably to lack of food/habitat, so why it isn't considered cruel to release a load more to share a similar fate is beyond me.
That's because wetlands so valuable for biodiversity. Even for us human beings - could work as flood alleviation schemes for Moray, Tayside etc.
I've done some work blocking off drainage ditches before. Probably cheaper to get some beavers in instead.
The Eurostar is 5x more inconvenient than it was pre-Br*x*t.
They have erected a whole new set of gates at STP and also GdN and you have to be there hours before the off time instead of around 40-50mins as per hitherto.
That makes Eurostar a pretty awful experience. I am due to travel there on my way to San Sebastian in two weeks time. I'm not looking forward to it.
Yeah, I pass through St Pancras quite often, and the queues for the Eurostar look horrendous every time.
It used to feel like a very elegant and simple way to travel abroad, a sign of a confident capital and an outward-looking nation. Now has a crappy parochial drabness, inefficient and glum - the glorious architecture housing it now serving to underline the decline to this point, like the shanty town T.E. Lawrence found in Krak des Chevaliers. Sad.
Yep. I had a decade between trips and the difference was stark. The first was a relaxed pleasant journey, the latter like boarding a plane and I hate flying, not because of the actual flying but the bit before and after.
Comments
It uses the Facebook LLaMA model, but has been trained on GPT question and answer sets (which is a neat time saver), and which will run on consumer grade hardware:
https://www.marktechpost.com/2023/04/03/meet-gpt4all-a-7b-parameter-language-model-fine-tuned-from-a-curated-set-of-400k-gpt-turbo-3-5-assistant-style-generation/?amp
This is one of three such difficulties. The island of Ireland has presented the same lack of majority or plurality, compounded by variable geometry as to what the relevant constituency comprises.
And Scotland demonstrates exactly the same picture - no clear consistent majority or plurality for Independence or for being in the UK.
Either the opinion gap is too small and/or who is in the lead varies.
Does this suggest that the questions are the wrong ones, the choices too limited, or leadership at all levels lacking in talent and conviction.
At the moment all three look literally interminable.
Are some new answers needed, linking the problems. Like: A four state solution: NI, E and W, Scotland, RoI. All in EFTA/EEA and NATO?
There are 2 very different environmental crises we are dealing with in the UK. One involves mitigating climate change. It’s a huge task, demanding global effort and a complete overhaul of our energy mix. And we’re making progress.
The other is altogether different, even if climate change itself may be part of the cause. That’s the degradation of our natural habitats, threats to our native wildlife and the overall quality of our air, water and food.
I think there is scope for the British electorate to support quite radical policies on this. Imagine a manifesto that focused on the transformation of our natural environment:
- Much tougher rules on inland water quality, agricultural nitrate leaching into rivers, and coastal waters, supported by funding
- A concerted effort to phase out all single use plastic through taxation and regulation
- Proper regulations on the density of hill sheep farming with major habitat restoration efforts in areas like the central wales desert
- ULEZ style air quality rules rolled out in all urban areas, and progressively tightened (with the necessary transitional support like scrappage schemes to get people there)
- Reintroduction of lost species
- A system wide focus on identifying and addressing the causes of our catastrophic insect losses
One of the main things that makes the difference between a happy day and a sad day is the state of the environment around us. Fresh air, birdsong, clean streets, greenery. It’s a perfect kernel of a retail politics offer from the Green Party but they seem distracted as always by issues that aren’t even particularly green.
Because they take a lot of space, don't expect to see them at St pancras or Gare du Nord, but I would expect them to become ubiquitous at airports.
I think it is a single genetic variation so there may not be any graduation.
The case is too uncertain and technical to deliver the clarity America needs"
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/03/30/prosecuting-donald-trump-over-stormy-daniels-looks-like-a-mistake
As for the UK car industry its problems are nor Brexit related except at the margins, They are the usual issue of government neglect the Tories are as bad as Blair, supply chain weaknesses through chip availability, it's own shooting itself in the foot through confusing customers on power train and fuel systems. I suspect you will find I was not a big EV supporter as I couldnt see where we would be putting the infrastructure in in time, And still dont.
Roy McGrath killed by gunfire in confrontation with FBI in Tennessee
https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/politics-power/state-government/roy-mcgrath-fugitive-found-manhunt-QBUF7AKQM5DN3PQD2OYJI43MA4/
...The former head of the Maryland Environmental Service and chief of staff to former Gov. Larry Hogan had been missing since March 13 when he failed to show in federal court in Baltimore for his trial on charges of fraud, theft and falsifying records.
In a statement issued by a spokesman Monday night, Hogan said: “Yumi and I are deeply saddened by this tragic situation. We are praying for Mr. McGrath’s family and loved ones.”
What led authorities to McGrath on Monday evening has not yet been disclosed. Multiple people on Twitter reported seeing a massive police presence involving the FBI at a shopping center in Farragut, Tennessee — more than 800 miles from McGrath’s South Florida home...
...Quickly, a large number of additional police vehicles from multiple agencies descended on the scene and police started putting up caution tape. Both side windows of the SUV had been shot out. He said he saw a man being taken out of the SUV and put onto a stretcher, with a sheet pulled up to his neck. He said he could see blood on the ground.
Housley did not witness the shooting, but said that someone who did told him that agents were ordering the man out of the car and to put his hands up, and that the man reached for something and the agents opened fire.
The shooting took place in a commercial area that Housley described as higher-end. “Everybody was like, what is going on, this doesn’t happen in Farragut,” Housley said...
The issue in the UK was access to the non-contributory welfare state on the same terms as a UK citizen for example.
The problem is we ended up further outside than the result or public opinion demanded, so the job of unwinding that is now under way.
Touch and go whether they can pull off a majority with a 5-10% lead but with tactical voting and SNP imploding "opp north" I think they will manage to get a small 1-20 seat majority.
Interesting that Keith remains really rather unpopular for a LOTO at a time when the government itself is deeply unpopular and that remains the one caveat in all of this.
Povlsen et al have the right idea in Glen Feshie. Having been there in the early 1990s and again recently, the difference a zero tolerance policy has made is extraordinary. A new forest is springing up. And not just the Pines and Birch, also the (currently rare) upland Willows.
can Sunak get the pissed off Tories to come out and vote in spite of themselves and is mowing the lawn more interesting than voting SKS for lLabourites
There was a time, long ago, when going through passport control at Dover, Calais, the Eurostar terminals or European airports often involved a bored looking French or other country official shrugging and waving you through en masse. This was a great improvement on the pre 1992 era when customs regularly checked the boot for contraband fags and booze.
Then came 9:11 and much longer and more thorough security checks. Then the Calais migrant city, especially around the Eurotunnel terminal, and much more meaningful passport checks particularly for people with children. Now Brexit.
Of course decades before that usBrits didn’t even travel with passports, we just hailed the border guard with an airy “I say old chap, open the gate will you and no idling”.
https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1642930898323554304?s=20
Incidentally grey squirrels were apparently introduced in the 1890’s and the 11th Duke of Bedford thought they were an attractive addition to the countryside, so gave them ….presumably in at least pairs ….. to other landed gents.
(*Which, by the way, is a fascinating story of scientific fraud, when you look deep into it. See "Of Moths and Men" for more info.
https://amazon.co.uk/Moths-Men-Intrigue-Tragedy-Peppered/dp/1841153923/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3UQY5KFUP48Y3&keywords=of+moths+and+men&qid=1680611300&sprefix=of+moths+and+men%2Caps%2C78&sr=8-1
The reality is that eGates are being implemented at all major airports across Europe, and they will (largely) treat EEA and UK passport holders equally.
This is a spectactular non-issue, except in places where people travel by car (Dover) or where space for eGates is limited, such as railway stations.
Anything happened while I was away?
"Vote Remain. Let's carry on as we are. It's gonna be a blast!"
C'mon.
What you can do is what was done - stress that leaving would make us poorer and weaker. Which has duly happened, hence the consensus it was a mistake.
They have erected a whole new set of gates at STP and also GdN and you have to be there hours before the off time instead of around 40-50mins as per hitherto.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Prince_Edward_Island_general_election
And it's an insoluble problem because if you farm, say, pheasants, then you take away the wild element and hence it becomes like a stringy chicken. Plus people still shoot zillions of them so you are back where you started. Same with venison.
The last few polls has them ticking up. Previously as soon as that looked like happening they came back down again.
No, that would be Mipple…
Probably 67m journeys, not all by UK citizens
https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/portugal/entry-requirements
On your second point - early days but yes - things have improved recently.
They need to be either stamped or electronically tracked.
Check your passport is stamped by the border officer when you enter and exit Portugal as a visitor.
You can use the staffed immigration booths or, if you are aged 18 and over, the e-gates designated for UK and some other non-EU nationals. Hand your passport for stamping to the border officer after you have passed through the e-gate.
You cannot use the e-gates to exit Portugal if you entered the Schengen area via another member state.
Border guards use passport stamps to check you’re complying with the 90-day visa-free limit for short stays in the Schengen area. If relevant entry or exit stamps are not in your passport, a border officer may presume that you have overstayed your visa-free limit.
https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/portugal/entry-requirements
It used to feel like a very elegant and simple way to travel abroad, a sign of a confident capital and an outward-looking nation. Now has a crappy parochial drabness, inefficient and glum - the glorious architecture housing it now serving to underline the decline to this point, like the shanty town T.E. Lawrence found in Krak des Chevaliers. Sad.
If you use the ePassport gates it generates an electronic trail which removes the need for a stamp. If you travel to Rome or Lisbon, you will use the gates and you will be fully compliant.
They are reintroducing a form of wildcat in the Cairngorms at the moment - everyone in the locality of the scheme is having to spay and tag their cats in case the newcomers take a shine to them and breed feral monsters. The things all but died out, due presumably to lack of food/habitat, so why it isn't considered cruel to release a load more to share a similar fate is beyond me.
Although beavers destroy mature trees they create habitat and don't mow the lot down like deer do to all the new growth.
FYI, the UK is in the top ten manufacturing countries in the world with an annual output of £183 billion. Your understanding of this seems to be about as informed as your use of punctuation or the potential for EVs. The latter is unsurprising as you are clearly a reactionary, and reactionaries are rarely early adopters.
NEW If/when he wins an election, it is likely @Keir_Starmer will be the least popular opposition leader to win a majority in recent history - normally (Blair/Cameron) you have to be well above net zero - he's on minus 20 for satisfaction
https://twitter.com/markmcgeoghegan/status/1643204946148433921
But good luck to whoever might make that suggestion to Mr Tyson.
Go back to dog grooming
I've done some work blocking off drainage ditches before. Probably cheaper to get some beavers in instead.