Why Sussex. What’s wrong with somewhere int’ North? (Yes, I realise Cumberland wouldn’t be a good idea!)
Royals do something new protocol-wise only when absolutely forced, hence my assumption that they'll reuse an existing title rather than create, say, a dukedom of Sheffield.
Of those titles which have been used in the past:
In use now:
Edinburgh Cambridge York Gloucester Kent
Too historically or geographically loaded:
Clarence Connaught Cumberland Windsor
Too weird:
Albemarle (also, the non-royal Earldom of Albemarle is extant) Avondale (was previously part of a double-title) St Andrews (was previously part of a double-title; also, the Earldom of St Andrews is the courtesy title of the heir to the Dukedom of Kent) Kintyre and Lorne Ross
Owen Paterson points out that whilst the UK has been in the EU there has been a VAT border, an income tax border and a corporation tax border between Ireland and Northern Ireland but without the need for a physical border.
Is Duty on petrol, diesel, booze & fags identical, or is there a 'border' there too?
not only are taxes out of kilter but the exchange rate makes it a moving feast
currently booze and fags are humungously expensive south of the border
petrol used to be cheaper but the exchange rate has now cancelled that advantage
So we already have 'borders' on:
- VAT - Duty on fuel, booze & fags - Income Tax - Corporation Tax
But adding a border on 'goods' will be the end of days?
Its amazing how suddenly concerned so many 'lets find a daily hole in the proposals' Remainers are about immigration, and especially illegal immigration.
Presumably we're currently seeing lots of illegal immigration through the open NI border, are we? I'm looking forward to a link to show this.
Let me explain, it really isn't a difficult concept to grasp. People were led to expect that Brexit would massively curtail illegal immigration. A gaping wide open border anywhere along our boundaries means that cannot and will not happen. When that becomes clear after Brexit, there will be huge pressure from the tabloids, UKIP etc for the border with Eire to be hardened.
Let me ask again, it really isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
How much illegal immigration comes through the wide open NI border now?
Illegal immigrants can of course be deported. We cant deport those who -because of the EU -and freedom of movement -come legally. The solution therefore seems to be leave the open border, and toughen up the system for finding illegals.
Governments have spent 20 years assuring the Daily Mail that they are going to start seriously finding and deporting illegals. They have consistently failed to do so primarily because the resources required are totally disproportionate to the problem. We will be a poorer country post Brexit at least in the initial years, so I can't see that changing.
I repeat - leaving a wide open border having promised voters that the borders would be secured post-Brexit will be politically impossible.
The simple answer would be to go after employers, hard. Unlimited fines and custodial sentences in the most egregious cases. It's really not that hard for employers to check whether or not people have the right to work.
Combine this with well publicised spot checks for the most vulnerable industries and additionally offer huge bounties (e.g. 10k + a legitimate work permit) for any illegal immigrant informing on an employer who regularly hires people without the correct documentation.
Absolutely.
I'm fully expecting Mr Smithsion Jnr to turn up in a minute and remind us that Switzerland has one of the lowest rates of illegal immigration in the world.
Why Sussex. What’s wrong with somewhere int’ North? (Yes, I realise Cumberland wouldn’t be a good idea!)
Royals do something new protocol-wise only when absolutely forced, hence my assumption that they'll reuse an existing title rather than create, say, a dukedom of Sheffield.
Of those titles which have been used in the past:
In use now:
Edinburgh Cambridge York Gloucester Kent
Too historically or geographically loaded:
Clarence Connaught Cumberland Windsor
Too weird:
Albemarle (also, the non-royal Earldom of Albemarle is extant) Avondale (was previously part of a double-title) St Andrews (was previously part of a double-title; also, the Earldom of St Andrews is the courtesy title of the heir to the Dukedom of Kent) Kintyre and Lorne Ross
Owen Paterson points out that whilst the UK has been in the EU there has been a VAT border, an income tax border and a corporation tax border between Ireland and Northern Ireland but without the need for a physical border.
Is Duty on petrol, diesel, booze & fags identical, or is there a 'border' there too?
not only are taxes out of kilter but the exchange rate makes it a moving feast
currently booze and fags are humungously expensive south of the border
petrol used to be cheaper but the exchange rate has now cancelled that advantage
So we already have 'borders' on:
- VAT - Duty on fuel, booze & fags - Income Tax - Corporation Tax
But adding a border on 'goods' will be the end of days?
Why Sussex. What’s wrong with somewhere int’ North? (Yes, I realise Cumberland wouldn’t be a good idea!)
Royals do something new protocol-wise only when absolutely forced, hence my assumption that they'll reuse an existing title rather than create, say, a dukedom of Sheffield.
Of those titles which have been used in the past:
In use now:
Edinburgh Cambridge York Gloucester Kent
Too historically or geographically loaded:
Clarence Connaught Cumberland Windsor
Too weird:
Albemarle (also, the non-royal Earldom of Albemarle is extant) Avondale (was previously part of a double-title) St Andrews (was previously part of a double-title; also, the Earldom of St Andrews is the courtesy title of the heir to the Dukedom of Kent) Kintyre and Lorne Ross
too junior
Hereford Kendal
Suspended
Albany Teviotdale
Others
Sussex
That's a short short-list to choose from.
Cambridge, but no Oxford. A clear case of an anomaly crying out to be righted.
Owen Paterson points out that whilst the UK has been in the EU there has been a VAT border, an income tax border and a corporation tax border between Ireland and Northern Ireland but without the need for a physical border.
Is Duty on petrol, diesel, booze & fags identical, or is there a 'border' there too?
not only are taxes out of kilter but the exchange rate makes it a moving feast
currently booze and fags are humungously expensive south of the border
petrol used to be cheaper but the exchange rate has now cancelled that advantage
So we already have 'borders' on:
- VAT - Duty on fuel, booze & fags - Income Tax - Corporation Tax
But adding a border on 'goods' will be the end of days?
Whereas under the formula operated by the previous Labour government (using the higher of RPI or 2.5% and not the lower CPI inflation rate), pensions would have increased by 4%.
I'm sure that when Osborne introduced the triple lock, he did so in the expectation that austerity would herald a prolonged period of earnings stagnation, during which the link of pensions to earnings would prove absolutely worthless. The switch from RPI to CPI has proved to be of much more significance.
I'm fully expecting Mr Smithsion Jnr to turn up in a minute and remind us that Switzerland has one of the lowest rates of illegal immigration in the world.
It is 4.45am in California. Still, I wouldn't put it past @rcs1000.
I'm fully expecting Mr Smithsion Jnr to turn up in a minute and remind us that Switzerland has one of the lowest rates of illegal immigration in the world.
It is 4.45am in California. Still, I wouldn't put it past @rcs1000.
I've got Mike and Robert's phone numbers, I could give them a ring if you'd like.
I'm sure they'll both appreciate being woken up at 4:45am
On topic, I don't think the leak is about getting at Mrs May - though obviously it is about getting at an influential Remainer in Green.
Whoever it is, Tory members will choose the Leaver - Johnson or Rees-Mogg or Leadsom.
So we will have a PM who will be a lot less able to hold the Tory Party together than May - and she's finding it very difficult.
A General Election in May 2018 (Corbyn v. Johnson) will see the Tories lose a few seats and Labour gain a few including from the SNP resulting in a minority Labour government with confidence and supply from the SNP, LDs and Green.
Their first act will be to ask for an extension of A50 which will be readily agreed by the EU, followed by a five year transition of the status quo followed by ????
Have you spoken to many Tory MPs (or indeed Tory leaver MPs) recently.....?
"The Brexiteers will trigger a confidence vote in her leadership because she hasn't been tough enough, to result in no Brexit?" I don't follow.
It is wishful thinking on your part - you suggest that the Brexiteers will call for a VOC in Mrs May because she hasn't been hard enough, and then follow that through with a path to your desired outcome.
Do you not think they might realise that losing Mrs May might have such an impact? Do you not think that might stay their hand?
I really hope that your thinking is representative of Tory MPs. That would be marvellous.
It would mean that she can make almost any concession and stay in place because Tory MPs fear Corbyn more than an extended ultra soft Brexit.
In this scenario, if she wants to stay in place, it is in her interests to extend the Brexit process as long as possible. So an extension of the A50 process, an extended transition period, a customs union of some sort - and she survives until 2022 when the party have no choice but to face Corbyn. Yes I buy that. And I agree it is more likely than my scenario.
Owen Paterson points out that whilst the UK has been in the EU there has been a VAT border, an income tax border and a corporation tax border between Ireland and Northern Ireland but without the need for a physical border.
All people - other than Irish or British citizens - already require passports, and most sea/air carriers already require you carry some form of ID to show you're Irish or British. In addition, both already share immigration data on 3rd country nationals, and collaborate accordingly.
What will change is employment/residency restrictions in the UK, not the right to cross the EIRE/NI land border. If an EU national tries to circumvent via that route they will be picked up either on a sea/air crossing to the UK, or when trying to seek employment or claim benefits.
What will change is employment/residency restrictions in the UK, not the right to cross the EIRE/NI land border. If an EU national tries to circumvent via that route they will be picked up either on a sea/air crossing to the UK, or when trying to seek employment or claim benefits.
What if an EU national crosses the border and then remains in Northern Ireland, or does that not really count?
On topic, I don't think the leak is about getting at Mrs May - though obviously it is about getting at an influential Remainer in Green.
Whoever it is, Tory members will choose the Leaver - Johnson or Rees-Mogg or Leadsom.
So we will have a PM who will be a lot less able to hold the Tory Party together than May - and she's finding it very difficult.
A General Election in May 2018 (Corbyn v. Johnson) will see the Tories lose a few seats and Labour gain a few including from the SNP resulting in a minority Labour government with confidence and supply from the SNP, LDs and Green.
Their first act will be to ask for an extension of A50 which will be readily agreed by the EU, followed by a five year transition of the status quo followed by ????
Have you spoken to many Tory MPs (or indeed Tory leaver MPs) recently.....?
"The Brexiteers will trigger a confidence vote in her leadership because she hasn't been tough enough, to result in no Brexit?" I don't follow.
It is wishful thinking on your part - you suggest that the Brexiteers will call for a VOC in Mrs May because she hasn't been hard enough, and then follow that through with a path to your desired outcome.
Do you not think they might realise that losing Mrs May might have such an impact? Do you not think that might stay their hand?
I really hope that your thinking is representative of Tory MPs. That would be marvellous.
It would mean that she can make almost any concession and stay in place because Tory MPs fear Corbyn more than an extended ultra soft Brexit.
In this scenario, if she wants to stay in place, it is in her interests to extend the Brexit process as long as possible. So an extension of the A50 process, an extended transition period, a customs union of some sort - and she survives until 2022 when the party have no choice but to face Corbyn. Yes I buy that. And I agree it is more likely than my scenario.
EDIT: It leads to a similar long term result.
Except that you're forgetting other constraints on her actions.
Its amazing how suddenly concerned so many 'lets find a daily hole in the proposals' Remainers are about immigration, and especially illegal immigration.
Presumably we're currently seeing lots of illegal immigration through the open NI border, are we? I'm looking forward to a link to show this.
Let me explain, it really isn't a difficult concept to grasp. People were led to expect that Brexit would massively curtail illegal immigration. A gaping wide open border anywhere along our boundaries means that cannot and will not happen. When that becomes clear after Brexit, there will be huge pressure from the tabloids, UKIP etc for the border with Eire to be hardened.
Let me ask again, it really isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
How much illegal immigration comes through the wide open NI border now?
Illegal immigrants can of course be deported. We cant deport those who -because of the EU -and freedom of movement -come legally. The solution therefore seems to be leave the open border, and toughen up the system for finding illegals.
Governments have spent 20 years assuring the Daily Mail that they are going to start seriously finding and deporting illegals. They have consistently failed to do so primarily because the resources required are totally disproportionate to the problem. We will be a poorer country post Brexit at least in the initial years, so I can't see that changing.
I repeat - leaving a wide open border having promised voters that the borders would be secured post-Brexit will be politically impossible.
The simple answer would be to go after employers, hard. Unlimited fines and custodial sentences in the most egregious cases. It's really not that hard for employers to check whether or not people have the right to work.
Combine this with well publicised spot checks for the most vulnerable industries and additionally offer huge bounties (e.g. 10k + a legitimate work permit) for any illegal immigrant informing on an employer who regularly hires people without the correct documentation.
But you're proving my point exactly. All that would cost an absolutely huge amount of money - billions. Voters might want to get tough on immigration but will they approve of cutting the NHS budget to hire new border guards? The UKBF does many of the things you suggest already, with the resources at its disposal. Prisons are already heaving at the seams and bounties will cost a fortune.
Satoshi was most likely a man called Hal Finney, now deceased and cryogenically preserved. He received the very first transaction from Satoshi's coins, and also lived for many years in a town where a *real* Satoshi Nakamoto happened to live (who had nothing to do with Bitcoin, he was an elderly engineer with a love of trains).
Passenger ferries are interesting - most are stitching together British the isles rather than the EU:
Dublin to Liverpool - EU to UK Belfast to Liverpool - UK to UK Larne to Cairnryan - UK to UK Larne/Belfast to Stranraer - UK to UK Rosslare to Fishguard/Pembroke - EU to UK Dublin to Holyhead - EU to UK Belfast to Liverpool via Isle of Main - UK to CD to UK
On the "EU-EU" ferries:
Rosslare/Dublin to Cherbourg/Roscoff (EU to EU)
I can count 11 x ferries a week. The Oscar Wilde (the largest) has a max capacity of 1,500 passengers and 580 cars.
Let's assume they are always full to the brim, which they won't be, and 25% are EU citizens, then you'd have a max flow of 200k per year from France to EIRE, and vice-versa.
Firstly, 18 hours crossing time is more than enough time to do customs and immigration checks. Secondly, such crossings aren't cheap. And third if EU citizens did try and circumvent into the UK (or vice-versa) they'd need to pick up a further air or sea crossing at extra expense, where they'd also be expected to show ID. So I'm not too worried about that.
Entry into NI can be controlled via employment and benefits restrictions, and/or intelligence led checks on who is evading both and illegally resident.
For the rest the UK and EIRE agree to exchange/collaborate with customs officials at their ports, and with the French at Cherbourg/Roscoff.
By far the biggest challenge would be at airports (30+million passengers a year) but security/scanning and pre-checks are already very extensive there.
Satoshi was most likely a man called Hal Finney, now deceased and cryogenically preserved. He received the very first transaction from Satoshi's coins, and also lived for many years in a town where a *real* Satoshi Nakamoto happened to live (who had nothing to do with Bitcoin, he was an elderly engineer with a love of trains).
I have read that theory and it seems very plausible. It could be that Bitcoin, like Banksy, it is the project of more than one individual.
On topic, I don't think the leak is about getting at Mrs May - though obviously it is about getting at an influential Remainer in Green.
Whoever it is, Tory members will choose the Leaver - Johnson or Rees-Mogg or Leadsom.
So we will have a PM who will be a lot less able to hold the Tory Party together than May - and she's finding it very difficult.
A General Election in May 2018 (Corbyn v. Johnson) will see the Tories lose a few seats and Labour gain a few including from the SNP resulting in a minority Labour government with confidence and supply from the SNP, LDs and Green.
Their first act will be to ask for an extension of A50 which will be readily agreed by the EU, followed by a five year transition of the status quo followed by ????
Have you spoken to many Tory MPs (or indeed Tory leaver MPs) recently.....?
"The Brexiteers will trigger a confidence vote in her leadership because she hasn't been tough enough, to result in no Brexit?" I don't follow.
It is wishful thinking on your part - you suggest that the Brexiteers will call for a VOC in Mrs May because she hasn't been hard enough, and then follow that through with a path to your desired outcome.
Do you not think they might realise that losing Mrs May might have such an impact? Do you not think that might stay their hand?
I really hope that your thinking is representative of Tory MPs. That would be marvellous.
It would mean that she can make almost any concession and stay in place because Tory MPs fear Corbyn more than an extended ultra soft Brexit.
In this scenario, if she wants to stay in place, it is in her interests to extend the Brexit process as long as possible. So an extension of the A50 process, an extended transition period, a customs union of some sort - and she survives until 2022 when the party have no choice but to face Corbyn. Yes I buy that. And I agree it is more likely than my scenario.
EDIT: It leads to a similar long term result.
Except that you're forgetting other constraints on her actions.
Like the electorate...
Who are going to vote for Corbyn - quite. No I hadn't forgotten that. It is part of that scenario.
She's entitled to her view, and the Spectator likes to put across alternative views to provoke debate.
But, I don't agree with her. The world has moved on since the 1930s, and Harry is neither directly in line to the throne, nor is her Americanism an issue.
Meghan is a charming person who understands the boundaries of the role, and will support and strengthen Harry, for the right reasons, none of which applied to Wallis Simpson.
That Wallis was divorced was a very handy peg to keep a thoroughly unsuitable woman off the throne, and get rid of a king who wasn't doing the job properly to boot. It wasn't her marriages, still less her American nationality: it was her character.
Divorce was relatively rare in the UK in the 1930s, though not among the aristocracy. A divorced queen would have caused some political difficulties but I wouldn't be at all surprised if she'd been accepted had she been willing to fit in and shut up outside of small talk at visits.
I do wonder whether one of Joe Kennedy's long-term plans was to place a descendant on throne via Kathleen Kennedy (which would be why he overrode his wife's strenuous objections to any future Devonshire children being brought up Anglicans).
Why Sussex. What’s wrong with somewhere int’ North? (Yes, I realise Cumberland wouldn’t be a good idea!)
Royals do something new protocol-wise only when absolutely forced, hence my assumption that they'll reuse an existing title rather than create, say, a dukedom of Sheffield.
Of those titles which have been used in the past:
In use now:
Edinburgh Cambridge York Gloucester Kent
Too historically or geographically loaded:
Clarence Connaught Cumberland Windsor
Too weird:
Albemarle (also, the non-royal Earldom of Albemarle is extant) Avondale (was previously part of a double-title) St Andrews (was previously part of a double-title; also, the Earldom of St Andrews is the courtesy title of the heir to the Dukedom of Kent) Kintyre and Lorne Ross
too junior
Hereford Kendal
Suspended
Albany Teviotdale
Others
Sussex
That's a short short-list to choose from.
Cambridge, but no Oxford. A clear case of an anomaly crying out to be righted.
You already have an Earl of Asquith-Oxford (I don't think there an Earl of Oxford, but there is some complexity that I forget which is why the Asquith title is A-O not O)
Well ROI better let the EU talk about trade then or that's what the default position is in 16 months.
To be fair they are using this moment because they have a de jure veto at this point (until the Germans and French have a quiet de facto word with them behind the scenes). Once into trade talks it's QMV/Euro Parliament where Ireland has about 1-2%% of the votes.
a) Losing vetos is a tricky old thing (remember all those ones G Brown flushed down the pan late one night in Lisbon)
b) Ireland better get used to it because post Brexit that's what they are to the EU: 1-2%
Britain does have a FTA with Ireland. It dates from 1965 and was specifically mentioned and accommodated for in the 1972 Treaty of Accession.
Whenever I read an Economist article about the Antiques/auction trade I find several problems with it; and am told by others with different area of expertise that they find similar.
But is the Intl editor of the economist really not au fair with the Anglo Irish Free Trade Agreement? Just wow.
Charles William George Charlotte {Offspring 3 of William}
So Harry will be 6th in line to the throne - therefore I don't think the whole divorcee business should be an issue. Also let us note the current heir to the throne is married to a divorcee, he is quite far from the throne in practice now.
Passenger ferries are interesting - most are stitching together British the isles rather than the EU:
Dublin to Liverpool - EU to UK Belfast to Liverpool - UK to UK Larne to Cairnryan - UK to UK Larne/Belfast to Stranraer - UK to UK Rosslare to Fishguard/Pembroke - EU to UK Dublin to Holyhead - EU to UK Belfast to Liverpool via Isle of Main - UK to CD to UK
On the "EU-EU" ferries:
Rosslare/Dublin to Cherbourg/Roscoff (EU to EU)
I can count 11 x ferries a week. The Oscar Wilde (the largest) has a max capacity of 1,500 passengers and 580 cars.
Let's assume they are always full to the brim, which they won't be, and 25% are EU citizens, then you'd have a max flow of 200k per year from France to EIRE, and vice-versa.
Firstly, 18 hours crossing time is more than enough time to do customs and immigration checks. Secondly, such crossings aren't cheap. And third if EU citizens did try and circumvent into the UK (or vice-versa) they'd need to pick up a further air or sea crossing at extra expense, where they'd also be expected to show ID. So I'm not too worried about that.
Entry into NI can be controlled via employment and benefits restrictions, and/or intelligence led checks on who is evading both and illegally resident.
For the rest the UK and EIRE agree to exchange/collaborate with customs officials at their ports, and with the French at Cherbourg/Roscoff.
By far the biggest challenge would be at airports (30+million passengers a year) but security/scanning and pre-checks are already very extensive there.
If Brexit customs checks and tariffs make it harder for trade between Ireland and the continent to transit via the UK, the ferry and container services from Ireland direct to the rest of the EU may well expand considerably.
However, I'm glad there's no holiday in the offing, the last one of William and Kate was a nightmare, due to the Govt ( I suppose) idiotically putting in it a period between a late Easter and the May holiday we had about 2 clear days for work in about 11 and ended up negotiating it to another date so our processes didn't grind to a complete halt.
I was in Veldhoven at the time: No work was undertaken that day.
What will change is employment/residency restrictions in the UK, not the right to cross the EIRE/NI land border. If an EU national tries to circumvent via that route they will be picked up either on a sea/air crossing to the UK, or when trying to seek employment or claim benefits.
What if an EU national crosses the border and then remains in Northern Ireland, or does that not really count?
Charles William George Charlotte {Offspring 3 of William}
So Harry will be 6th in line to the throne - therefore I don't think the whole divorcee business should be an issue. Also let us note the current heir to the throne is married to a divorcee, he is quite far from the throne in practice now.
And let us also note it is 2017 and most people couldn't give a shit if the lovely Ms Markel is divorced!
I wonder what @Justin124's view is, as a republican and fundamentalist christian?
But you're proving my point exactly. All that would cost an absolutely huge amount of money - billions. Voters might want to get tough on immigration but will they approve of cutting the NHS budget to hire new border guards? The UKBF does many of the things you suggest already, with the resources at its disposal. Prisons are already heaving at the seams and bounties will cost a fortune.
I'm struggling to see where I suggested border guards or cutting the NHS budget, perhaps because I didn't.
In terms of the prison population going up, I suggested unlimited fines, it's currently capped at £20k per illegal and rarely enforced, I would make it a *minimum* 20k per illegal with no maximum - double it with each additional offence. Like speed cameras - make it pay and suddenly it will be a police priority.
I also suggested custodial sentences *for employers* in the most egregious cases. I'm not suggesting rounding up illegals.
A slap on the wrist for repeat offenders and a 4k fine per illegal. Cheap at half the price.
Unlimited fines in the first instance and occasional custodial sentences for repeat offenders would act as a powerful deterrent, not an excuse to go around locking up half the employers in the country.
Heavy fines would most likely be sufficient with just one or two token custodial examples made of persistent offenders each year.
As you point out, we already have such laws in place, we simply hardly ever use them. That's where the bounties come in. Heck, link it to the fine if you like. Give the immigrant a work permit and 50% of the fine. I bet there's quite a few who would relish taking money out of an exploitative employer's pocket.
Occasional spot checks could be carried out, but better publicised, using the UK's existing border force, in conjunction with the tip off / bounty system for illegals to provide better intelligence. The thing could be funded by actually imposing the fines set out under existing law. Run it like a business. Make it profitable.
Partisan nonsense -- mainly because the Telegraph has added Labour's planned debt to the far larger debt that would be inherited from the Conservatives. From the report: The shadow chancellor’s extra spending proposals would mean a Labour government borrowing £330 billion, adding to the £1.8 trillion of current national debt.
Britain does have a FTA with Ireland. It dates from 1965 and was specifically mentioned and accommodated for in the 1972 Treaty of Accession.
1 . THE PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE SHALL NOT PREVENT IRELAND FROM APPLYING TO PRODUCTS ORIGINATING IN THE UNITED KINGDOM ARRANGEMENTS ENABLING CUSTOMS DUTIES AND PROTECTIVE ELEMENTS CONTAINED IN CUSTOMS DUTIES OF A FISCAL NATURE TO BE ELIMINATED MORE RAPIDLY , IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ANGLO-IRISH FREE TRADE AREA AGREEMENT , SIGNED ON 14 DECEMBER 1965 , AND RELATED AGREEMENTS .
2 . THE PROVISIONS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 45 ( 2 ) SHALL APPLY FROM 1 JANUARY 1974 IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CUSTOMS ARRANGEMENTS IN FORCE BETWEEN IRELAND AND THE UNITED KINGDOM .
Its amazing how suddenly concerned so many 'lets find a daily hole in the proposals' Remainers are about immigration, and especially illegal immigration.
Presumably we're currently seeing lots of illegal immigration through the open NI border, are we? I'm looking forward to a link to show this.
Let me explain, it really isn't a difficult concept to grasp. People were led to expect that Brexit would massively curtail illegal immigration. A gaping wide open border anywhere along our boundaries means that cannot and will not happen. When that becomes clear after Brexit, there will be huge pressure from the tabloids, UKIP etc for the border with Eire to be hardened.
Let me ask again, it really isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
How much illegal immigration comes through the wide open NI border now?
Illegal immigrants can of course be deported. We cant deport those who -because of the EU -and freedom of movement -come legally. The solution therefore seems to be leave the open border, and toughen up the system for finding illegals.
Governments have spent 20 years assuring the Daily Mail that they are going to start seriously finding and deporting illegals. They have consistently failed to do so primarily because the resources required are totally disproportionate to the problem. We will be a poorer country post Brexit at least in the initial years, so I can't see that changing.
I repeat - leaving a wide open border having promised voters that the borders would be secured post-Brexit will be politically impossible.
The simple answer would be to go after employers, hard. Unlimited fines and custodial sentences in the most egregious cases. It's really not that hard for employers to check whether or not people have the right to work.
Combine this with well publicised spot checks for the most vulnerable industries and additionally offer huge bounties (e.g. 10k + a legitimate work permit) for any illegal immigrant informing on an employer who regularly hires people without the correct documentation.
Absolutely.
I'm fully expecting Mr Smithsion Jnr to turn up in a minute and remind us that Switzerland has one of the lowest rates of illegal immigration in the world.
Bah. It's 5:44am in Los Angeles, so I have better things to do.
Charles William George Charlotte {Offspring 3 of William}
So Harry will be 6th in line to the throne - therefore I don't think the whole divorcee business should be an issue. Also let us note the current heir to the throne is married to a divorcee, he is quite far from the throne in practice now.
No but the question of divorce is bound to arise in the press, especially in America where the excellent Netflix series The Crown had it as the main plot for at least two episodes, first the abdication and later Princess Margaret and Group Captain Townsend. I'd imagine the Palace press office has an FAQ list.
But you're proving my point exactly. All that would cost an absolutely huge amount of money - billions. Voters might want to get tough on immigration but will they approve of cutting the NHS budget to hire new border guards? The UKBF does many of the things you suggest already, with the resources at its disposal. Prisons are already heaving at the seams and bounties will cost a fortune.
I'm struggling to see where I suggested border guards or cutting the NHS budget, perhaps because I didn't.
In terms of the prison population going up, I suggested unlimited fines, it's currently capped at £20k per illegal and rarely enforced, I would make it a *minimum* 20k per illegal with no maximum - double it with each additional offence. Like speed cameras - make it pay and suddenly it will be a police priority.
I also suggested custodial sentences *for employers* in the most egregious cases. I'm not suggesting rounding up illegals.
A slap on the wrist for repeat offenders and a 4k fine per illegal. Cheap at half the price.
Unlimited fines in the first instance and occasional custodial sentences for repeat offenders would act as a powerful deterrent, not an excuse to go around locking up half the employers in the country.
Heavy fines would most likely be sufficient with just one or two token custodial examples made of persistent offenders each year.
As you point out, we already have such laws in place, we simply hardly ever use them. That's where the bounties come in. Heck, link it to the fine if you like. Give the immigrant a work permit and 50% of the fine. I bet there's quite a few who would relish taking money out of an exploitative employer's pocket.
Occasional spot checks could be carried out, but better publicised, using the UK's existing border force, in conjunction with the tip off / bounty system for illegals to provide better intelligence. The thing could be funded by actually imposing the fines set out under existing law. Run it like a business. Make it profitable.
It also wouldn't cost billions. The US equivalent, E-verify, is predicted to cost ~$200 mn/year for a nationwide rollout. For a country over four times as populous.
Partisan nonsense -- mainly because the Telegraph has added Labour's planned debt to the far larger debt that would be inherited from the Conservatives. From the report: The shadow chancellor’s extra spending proposals would mean a Labour government borrowing £330 billion, adding to the £1.8 trillion of current national debt.
I assume we'll hear nothing about how Labour inherited a huge debt pile from the Tories, especially based on the lack of such comments about the situation in 2010...
Passenger ferries are interesting - most are stitching together British the isles rather than the EU:
Dublin to Liverpool - EU to UK Belfast to Liverpool - UK to UK Larne to Cairnryan - UK to UK Larne/Belfast to Stranraer - UK to UK Rosslare to Fishguard/Pembroke - EU to UK Dublin to Holyhead - EU to UK Belfast to Liverpool via Isle of Main - UK to CD to UK
On the "EU-EU" ferries:
Rosslare/Dublin to Cherbourg/Roscoff (EU to EU)
I can count 11 x ferries a week. The Oscar Wilde (the largest) has a max capacity of 1,500 passengers and 580 cars.
Let's assume they are always full to the brim, which they won't be, and 25% are EU citizens, then you'd have a max flow of 200k per year from France to EIRE, and vice-versa.
Firstly, 18 hours crossing time is more than enough time to do customs and immigration checks. Secondly, such crossings aren't cheap. And third if EU citizens did try and circumvent into the UK (or vice-versa) they'd need to pick up a further air or sea crossing at extra expense, where they'd also be expected to show ID. So I'm not too worried about that.
Entry into NI can be controlled via employment and benefits restrictions, and/or intelligence led checks on who is evading both and illegally resident.
For the rest the UK and EIRE agree to exchange/collaborate with customs officials at their ports, and with the French at Cherbourg/Roscoff.
By far the biggest challenge would be at airports (30+million passengers a year) but security/scanning and pre-checks are already very extensive there.
If Brexit customs checks and tariffs make it harder for trade between Ireland and the continent to transit via the UK, the ferry and container services from Ireland direct to the rest of the EU may well expand considerably.
Yes, it's a good point. It tells you just how much EIRE-EU trade transits through the UK (which makes sense, Dublin-Berlin is far faster via the Irish Sea/M4/M25/M20/Chunnel) rather than on the slow 18-hour crossing to Cherbourg, which I suspect would deal mainly with Iberian traffic and tourism.
Makes it all the more important the EU get onto discussing the UK's future trade relationship, doesn't it?
It also wouldn't cost billions. The US equivalent, E-verify, is predicted to cost ~$200 mn/year for a nationwide rollout. For a country over four times as populous.
Assuming a 5x cost inflation for the implemented system (which is pretty much the minimum bloat for a government IT procurement), then that would be in the billion range.
I'd agree that the UK system *should* be cheaper, tho.
But you're proving my point exactly. All that would cost an absolutely huge amount of money - billions. Voters might want to get tough on immigration but will they approve of cutting the NHS budget to hire new border guards? The UKBF does many of the things you suggest already, with the resources at its disposal. Prisons are already heaving at the seams and bounties will cost a fortune.
I'm struggling to see where I suggested border guards or cutting the NHS budget, perhaps because I didn't.
In terms of the prison population going up, I suggested unlimited fines, it's currently capped at £20k per illegal and rarely enforced, I would make it a *minimum* 20k per illegal with no maximum - double it with each additional offence. Like speed cameras - make it pay and suddenly it will be a police priority.
I also suggested custodial sentences *for employers* in the most egregious cases. I'm not suggesting rounding up illegals.
A slap on the wrist for repeat offenders and a 4k fine per illegal. Cheap at half the price.
Unlimited fines in the first instance and occasional custodial sentences for repeat offenders would act as a powerful deterrent, not an excuse to go around locking up half the employers in the country.
Heavy fines would most likely be sufficient with just one or two token custodial examples made of persistent offenders each year.
As you point out, we already have such laws in place, we simply hardly ever use them. That's where the bounties come in. Heck, link it to the fine if you like. Give the immigrant a work permit and 50% of the fine. I bet there's quite a few who would relish taking money out of an exploitative employer's pocket.
Occasional spot checks could be carried out, but better publicised, using the UK's existing border force, in conjunction with the tip off / bounty system for illegals to provide better intelligence. The thing could be funded by actually imposing the fines set out under existing law. Run it like a business. Make it profitable.
It also wouldn't cost billions. The US equivalent, E-verify, is predicted to cost ~$200 mn/year for a nationwide rollout. For a country over four times as populous.
Yeah, the US has definitely managed to round up and deport all the millions of illegals living there.
Partisan nonsense -- mainly because the Telegraph has added Labour's planned debt to the far larger debt that would be inherited from the Conservatives. From the report: The shadow chancellor’s extra spending proposals would mean a Labour government borrowing £330 billion, adding to the £1.8 trillion of current national debt.
The taxpayers alliance research... invariably garbage.
They are also utterly opaque about who funds them - which means they are funded by people who don’t want you to know about it.
Look I’m left wing, I get that I will disagree with right wing people most of the time. But front groups like this undermine democracy and should be ignored.
Partisan nonsense -- mainly because the Telegraph has added Labour's planned debt to the far larger debt that would be inherited from the Conservatives. From the report: The shadow chancellor’s extra spending proposals would mean a Labour government borrowing £330 billion, adding to the £1.8 trillion of current national debt.
I assume we'll hear nothing about how Labour inherited a huge debt pile from the Tories, especially based on the lack of such comments about the situation in 2010...
Oddly enough, post-2010 debt increase was the more remarkable but if I think very hard, I can just about remember the Conservatives blaming Labour all those years ago.
But you're proving my point exactly. All that would cost an absolutely huge amount of money - billions. Voters might want to get tough on immigration but will they approve of cutting the NHS budget to hire new border guards? The UKBF does many of the things you suggest already, with the resources at its disposal. Prisons are already heaving at the seams and bounties will cost a fortune.
I'm struggling to see where I suggested border guards or cutting the NHS budget, perhaps because I didn't.
In terms of the prison population going up, I suggested unlimited fines, it's currently capped at £20k per illegal and rarely enforced, I would make it a *minimum* 20k per illegal with no maximum - double it with each additional offence. Like speed cameras - make it pay and suddenly it will be a police priority.
I also suggested custodial sentences *for employers* in the most egregious cases. I'm not suggesting rounding up illegals.
A slap on the wrist for repeat offenders and a 4k fine per illegal. Cheap at half the price.
Unlimited fines in the first instance and occasional custodial sentences for repeat offenders would act as a powerful deterrent, not an excuse to go around locking up half the employers in the country.
Heavy fines would most likely be sufficient with just one or two token custodial examples made of persistent offenders each year.
As you point out, we already have such laws in place, we simply hardly ever use them. That's where the bounties come in. Heck, link it to the fine if you like. Give the immigrant a work permit and 50% of the fine. I bet there's quite a few who would relish taking money out of an exploitative employer's pocket.
Occasional spot checks could be carried out, but better publicised, using the UK's existing border force, in conjunction with the tip off / bounty system for illegals to provide better intelligence. The thing could be funded by actually imposing the fines set out under existing law. Run it like a business. Make it profitable.
It also wouldn't cost billions. The US equivalent, E-verify, is predicted to cost ~$200 mn/year for a nationwide rollout. For a country over four times as populous.
Yeah, the US has definitely managed to round up and deport all the millions of illegals living there.
Well I did say the predicted cost of a nationwide rollout.
It also wouldn't cost billions. The US equivalent, E-verify, is predicted to cost ~$200 mn/year for a nationwide rollout. For a country over four times as populous.
Assuming a 5x cost inflation for the implemented system (which is pretty much the minimum bloat for a government IT procurement), then that would be in the billion range.
I'd agree that the UK system *should* be cheaper, tho.
But then factor in the difference in population/immigration rates, and you are back at $200 mn/year
No, I don't think it did. As Carlotta quoted, the Agreement was specifically referenced in the Accession Treaty in such a way that implied it not only remained in force after 1973 but overrode the normal accession arrangements.
My assumption - and this is only an assumption - is that the Agreement was never formally lapsed or abrogated as it simply became a dead letter with both states in the EEC/EC/EU. If so, it's still an active treaty and could be resurrected both in the discussions with the EU (and Dublin, as appropriate), and also with the WTO as justification for not imposing a border and customs on Ireland if no agreement is reached.
Charles William George Charlotte {Offspring 3 of William}
So Harry will be 6th in line to the throne - therefore I don't think the whole divorcee business should be an issue. Also let us note the current heir to the throne is married to a divorcee, he is quite far from the throne in practice now.
If William died young, there would be a good chance that Harry would serve as Regent under the current law. Charles will be 82 when George turns 18.
But you're proving my point exactly. All that would cost an absolutely huge amount of money - billions. Voters might want to get tough on immigration but will they approve of cutting the NHS budget to hire new border guards? The UKBF does many of the things you suggest already, with the resources at its disposal. Prisons are already heaving at the seams and bounties will cost a fortune.
I'm struggling to see where I suggested border guards or cutting the NHS budget, perhaps because I didn't.
In terms of the prison population going up, I suggested unlimited fines, it's currently capped at £20k per illegal and rarely enforced, I would make it a *minimum* 20k per illegal with no maximum - double it with each additional offence. Like speed cameras - make it pay and suddenly it will be a police priority.
I also suggested custodial sentences *for employers* in the most egregious cases. I'm not suggesting rounding up illegals.
A slap on the wrist for repeat offenders and a 4k fine per illegal. Cheap at half the price.
Unlimited fines in the first instance and occasional custodial sentences for repeat offenders would act as a powerful deterrent, not an excuse to go around locking up half the employers in the country.
Heavy fines would most likely be sufficient with just one or two token custodial examples made of persistent offenders each year.
As you point out, we already have such laws in place, we simply hardly ever use them. That's where the bounties come in. Heck, link it to the fine if you like. Give the immigrant a work permit and 50% of the fine. I bet there's quite a few who would relish taking money out of an exploitative employer's pocket.
Occasional spot checks could be carried out, but better publicised, using the UK's existing border force, in conjunction with the tip off / bounty system for illegals to provide better intelligence. The thing could be funded by actually imposing the fines set out under existing law. Run it like a business. Make it profitable.
There always need to be acceptable defences.
Imagine you acquire a business with 1,000 employees. During your due diligence you make sure that proper procedures are in place for ensuring workers are legal. And then on your first day as owner, it turns out the previous management had not followed procedures with regard to one junior employee.
Partisan nonsense -- mainly because the Telegraph has added Labour's planned debt to the far larger debt that would be inherited from the Conservatives. From the report: The shadow chancellor’s extra spending proposals would mean a Labour government borrowing £330 billion, adding to the £1.8 trillion of current national debt.
The Telegraph is right. No way that McDonnell would be able to borrow at current interest rates. He may want to borrow more to plump up the economy, but his wreckless stewardship in Number 11 would screw him over on servicing that £1.8 trillion. (Which is largely of Labour's doing anyway, so why shouldn't he have to take it into account - it was "Labour borrowing" from previous incarnations of the discredited and disastrous policy he will run with again....)
But you're proving my point exactly. All that would cost an absolutely huge amount of money - billions. Voters might want to get tough on immigration but will they approve of cutting the NHS budget to hire new border guards? The UKBF does many of the things you suggest already, with the resources at its disposal. Prisons are already heaving at the seams and bounties will cost a fortune.
I'm struggling to see where I suggested border guards or cutting the NHS budget, perhaps because I didn't.
In terms of the prison population going up, I suggested unlimited fines, it's currently capped at £20k per illegal and rarely enforced, I would make it a *minimum* 20k per illegal with no maximum - double it with each additional offence. Like speed cameras - make it pay and suddenly it will be a police priority.
I also suggested custodial sentences *for employers* in the most egregious cases. I'm not suggesting rounding up illegals.
A slap on the wrist for repeat offenders and a 4k fine per illegal. Cheap at half the price.
Unlimited fines in the first instance and occasional custodial sentences for repeat offenders would act as a powerful deterrent, not an excuse to go around locking up half the employers in the country.
Heavy fines would most likely be sufficient with just one or two token custodial examples made of persistent offenders each year.
As you point out, we already have such laws in place, we simply hardly ever use them. That's where the bounties come in. Heck, link it to the fine if you like. Give the immigrant a work permit and 50% of the fine. I bet there's quite a few who would relish taking money out of an exploitative employer's pocket.
Occasional spot checks could be carried out, but better publicised, using the UK's existing border force, in conjunction with the tip off / bounty system for illegals to provide better intelligence. The thing could be funded by actually imposing the fines set out under existing law. Run it like a business. Make it profitable.
There always need to be acceptable defences.
Imagine you acquire a business with 1,000 employees. During your due diligence you make sure that proper procedures are in place for ensuring workers are legal. And then on your first day as owner, it turns out the previous management had not followed procedures with regard to one junior employee.
So you report it.
HMRC would probably reply: Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Can you please send the fine of £20k by x date.
No, I don't think it did. As Carlotta quoted, the Agreement was specifically referenced in the Accession Treaty in such a way that implied it not only remained in force after 1973 but overrode the normal accession arrangements.
My assumption - and this is only an assumption - is that the Agreement was never formally lapsed or abrogated as it simply became a dead letter with both states in the EEC/EC/EU. If so, it's still an active treaty and could be resurrected both in the discussions with the EU (and Dublin, as appropriate), and also with the WTO as justification for not imposing a border and customs on Ireland if no agreement is reached.
As we know, members of the customs union cannot have their own, independent FTAs.
Passenger ferries are interesting - most are stitching together British the isles rather than the EU:
Dublin to Liverpool - EU to UK Belfast to Liverpool - UK to UK Larne to Cairnryan - UK to UK Larne/Belfast to Stranraer - UK to UK Rosslare to Fishguard/Pembroke - EU to UK Dublin to Holyhead - EU to UK Belfast to Liverpool via Isle of Main - UK to CD to UK
On the "EU-EU" ferries:
Rosslare/Dublin to Cherbourg/Roscoff (EU to EU)
I can count 11 x ferries a week. The Oscar Wilde (the largest) has a max capacity of 1,500 passengers and 580 cars.
Let's assume they are always full to the brim, which they won't be, and 25% are EU citizens, then you'd have a max flow of 200k per year from France to EIRE, and vice-versa.
Firstly, 18 hours crossing time is more than enough time to do customs and immigration checks. Secondly, such crossings aren't cheap. And third if EU citizens did try and circumvent into the UK (or vice-versa) they'd need to pick up a further air or sea crossing at extra expense, where they'd also be expected to show ID. So I'm not too worried about that.
Entry into NI can be controlled via employment and benefits restrictions, and/or intelligence led checks on who is evading both and illegally resident.
For the rest the UK and EIRE agree to exchange/collaborate with customs officials at their ports, and with the French at Cherbourg/Roscoff.
By far the biggest challenge would be at airports (30+million passengers a year) but security/scanning and pre-checks are already very extensive there.
If Brexit customs checks and tariffs make it harder for trade between Ireland and the continent to transit via the UK, the ferry and container services from Ireland direct to the rest of the EU may well expand considerably.
Yes, it's a good point. It tells you just how much EIRE-EU trade transits through the UK (which makes sense, Dublin-Berlin is far faster via the Irish Sea/M4/M25/M20/Chunnel) rather than on the slow 18-hour crossing to Cherbourg, which I suspect would deal mainly with Iberian traffic and tourism.
Makes it all the more important the EU get onto discussing the UK's future trade relationship, doesn't it?
I'm mildly surprised that there isn't currently a Ireland-Spain (Cork-Gijon, Santander or Bilbao presumably) ferry already. Given that there are 2 routes from Plymouth and 1 from Portsmouth.
But you're proving my point exactly. All that would cost an absolutely huge amount of money - billions. Voters might want to get tough on immigration but will they approve of cutting the NHS budget to hire new border guards? The UKBF does many of the things you suggest already, with the resources at its disposal. Prisons are already heaving at the seams and bounties will cost a fortune.
I'm struggling to see where I suggested border guards or cutting the NHS budget, perhaps because I didn't.
In terms of the prison population going up, I suggested unlimited fines, it's currently capped at £20k per illegal and rarely enforced, I would make it a *minimum* 20k per illegal with no maximum - double it with each additional offence. Like speed cameras - make it pay and suddenly it will be a police priority.
I also suggested custodial sentences *for employers* in the most egregious cases. I'm not suggesting rounding up illegals.
A slap on the wrist for repeat offenders and a 4k fine per illegal. Cheap at half the price.
Unlimited fines in the first instance and occasional custodial sentences for repeat offenders would act as a powerful deterrent, not an excuse to go around locking up half the employers in the country.
Heavy fines would most likely be sufficient with just one or two token custodial examples made of persistent offenders each year.
As you point out, we already have such laws in place, we simply hardly ever use them. That's where the bounties come in. Heck, link it to the fine if you like. Give the immigrant a work permit and 50% of the fine. I bet there's quite a few who would relish taking money out of an exploitative employer's pocket.
Occasional spot checks could be carried out, but better publicised, using the UK's existing border force, in conjunction with the tip off / bounty system for illegals to provide better intelligence. The thing could be funded by actually imposing the fines set out under existing law. Run it like a business. Make it profitable.
There always need to be acceptable defences.
Imagine you acquire a business with 1,000 employees. During your due diligence you make sure that proper procedures are in place for ensuring workers are legal. And then on your first day as owner, it turns out the previous management had not followed procedures with regard to one junior employee.
So you report it.
HMRC would probably reply: Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Can you please send the fine of £20k by x date.
I'm struggling to see where I suggested border guards or cutting the NHS budget, perhaps because I didn't.
In terms of the prison population going up, I suggested unlimited fines, it's currently capped at £20k per illegal and rarely enforced, I would make it a *minimum* 20k per illegal with no maximum - double it with each additional offence. Like speed cameras - make it pay and suddenly it will be a police priority.
I also suggested custodial sentences *for employers* in the most egregious cases. I'm not suggesting rounding up illegals.
A slap on the wrist for repeat offenders and a 4k fine per illegal. Cheap at half the price.
Unlimited fines in the first instance and occasional custodial sentences for repeat offenders would act as a powerful deterrent, not an excuse to go around locking up half the employers in the country.
Heavy fines would most likely be sufficient with just one or two token custodial examples made of persistent offenders each year.
As you point out, we already have such laws in place, we simply hardly ever use them. That's where the bounties come in. Heck, link it to the fine if you like. Give the immigrant a work permit and 50% of the fine. I bet there's quite a few who would relish taking money out of an exploitative employer's pocket.
Occasional spot checks could be carried out, but better publicised, using the UK's existing border force, in conjunction with the tip off / bounty system for illegals to provide better intelligence. The thing could be funded by actually imposing the fines set out under existing law. Run it like a business. Make it profitable.
There always need to be acceptable defences.
Imagine you acquire a business with 1,000 employees. During your due diligence you make sure that proper procedures are in place for ensuring workers are legal. And then on your first day as owner, it turns out the previous management had not followed procedures with regard to one junior employee.
I agree, and those defences would need to be defined by people more adept at lawmaking than me. The absurdity of current gun laws meaning if you found Granddad's old service revolver in the attic you could be jailed for possessing it, for example. However a slap on the wrist and an instruction to get your house in order should be the exception rather than the rule and should be completely unthinkable in dealing with repeat offenders.
Combine this with incentivising illegals to step forward rather than the current system of anonymous tip offs and the system could be vastly improved.
Yeah, the US has definitely managed to round up and deport all the millions of illegals living there.
My wife comes originally from a country that supplies the UK with immigrants, some of them illegal. She, of course, is here legally. But, since she runs a shop in a London market, she frequently encounters people who are not. Most of these people are economic migrants. They have usually entered the country legally - on tourist visas or perhaps as domestic workers with foreign employers. They work cash in hand in small restaurants, as domestic cleaners or as labourers for small builders. In general their compatriots are sympathetic to the plight of those without papers, the last thing they would do is report them to the authorities, and a bounty system would not change these attitudes.
Occasionally illegals are reported by someone with a grudge - this sometimes results in UKBA taking action but it's rare for this to result in deportation, illegals will perhaps claim to be in a relationship with someone here legally or they will find other obstacles to throw in the way of the process. It's impossibly expensive to keep them in custody while their cases are resolved and the police have far more urgent things to do - they are not interested in pursuing people unless more serious crime is involved. So people just move on somewhere else. They live in houses rented by people who are here legally - as long as rents are paid landlords are unlikely to take an interest and if they do ask they will just be told that so and so is staying for a few weeks.
Work and accommodation is found through word of mouth networks which operate in London and, no doubt, other big cities. It's more difficult now that the rules have been tightened but by no means impossible. This kind of thing has been going on for decades and it won't be stopping any time soon.
Comments
Of those titles which have been used in the past:
In use now:
Edinburgh
Cambridge
York
Gloucester
Kent
Too historically or geographically loaded:
Clarence
Connaught
Cumberland
Windsor
Too weird:
Albemarle (also, the non-royal Earldom of Albemarle is extant)
Avondale (was previously part of a double-title)
St Andrews (was previously part of a double-title; also, the Earldom of St Andrews is the courtesy title of the heir to the Dukedom of Kent)
Kintyre and Lorne
Ross
too junior
Hereford
Kendal
Suspended
Albany
Teviotdale
Others
Sussex
That's a short short-list to choose from.
- VAT
- Duty on fuel, booze & fags
- Income Tax
- Corporation Tax
But adding a border on 'goods' will be the end of days?
Is that the argument?
I'm fully expecting Mr Smithsion Jnr to turn up in a minute and remind us that Switzerland has one of the lowest rates of illegal immigration in the world.
I'm sure that when Osborne introduced the triple lock, he did so in the expectation that austerity would herald a prolonged period of earnings stagnation, during which the link of pensions to earnings would prove absolutely worthless. The switch from RPI to CPI has proved to be of much more significance.
I'm sure they'll both appreciate being woken up at 4:45am
https://mobile.twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/935107096097542144
Anyway, I must be off to do my mandated period of physical exertion to help maintain physical capability to be a productive worker.
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/935129225878794242
It would mean that she can make almost any concession and stay in place because Tory MPs fear Corbyn more than an extended ultra soft Brexit.
In this scenario, if she wants to stay in place, it is in her interests to extend the Brexit process as long as possible. So an extension of the A50 process, an extended transition period, a customs union of some sort - and she survives until 2022 when the party have no choice but to face Corbyn. Yes I buy that. And I agree it is more likely than my scenario.
EDIT: It leads to a similar long term result.
All people - other than Irish or British citizens - already require passports, and most sea/air carriers already require you carry some form of ID to show you're Irish or British. In addition, both already share immigration data on 3rd country nationals, and collaborate accordingly.
What will change is employment/residency restrictions in the UK, not the right to cross the EIRE/NI land border. If an EU national tries to circumvent via that route they will be picked up either on a sea/air crossing to the UK, or when trying to seek employment or claim benefits.
Katie Hopkins has been given the heave-ho by the Mail
Or
Rumour that Elon Musk is the creator of BitCoin
https://news.slashdot.org/story/17/11/26/2218240/did-elon-musk-create-bitcoin
If Prince Harry had married her a few years ago he'd have been ruled out of the line of succession.
And is she worse than Samantha Cameron ?
Like the electorate...
:tumbleweed:
Dublin to Liverpool - EU to UK
Belfast to Liverpool - UK to UK
Larne to Cairnryan - UK to UK
Larne/Belfast to Stranraer - UK to UK
Rosslare to Fishguard/Pembroke - EU to UK
Dublin to Holyhead - EU to UK
Belfast to Liverpool via Isle of Main - UK to CD to UK
On the "EU-EU" ferries:
Rosslare/Dublin to Cherbourg/Roscoff (EU to EU)
I can count 11 x ferries a week. The Oscar Wilde (the largest) has a max capacity of 1,500 passengers and 580 cars.
Let's assume they are always full to the brim, which they won't be, and 25% are EU citizens, then you'd have a max flow of 200k per year from France to EIRE, and vice-versa.
Firstly, 18 hours crossing time is more than enough time to do customs and immigration checks. Secondly, such crossings aren't cheap. And third if EU citizens did try and circumvent into the UK (or vice-versa) they'd need to pick up a further air or sea crossing at extra expense, where they'd also be expected to show ID. So I'm not too worried about that.
Entry into NI can be controlled via employment and benefits restrictions, and/or intelligence led checks on who is evading both and illegally resident.
For the rest the UK and EIRE agree to exchange/collaborate with customs officials at their ports, and with the French at Cherbourg/Roscoff.
By far the biggest challenge would be at airports (30+million passengers a year) but security/scanning and pre-checks are already very extensive there.
Best get to it.
Also why are we 'most favoured nation' ?
Divorce was relatively rare in the UK in the 1930s, though not among the aristocracy. A divorced queen would have caused some political difficulties but I wouldn't be at all surprised if she'd been accepted had she been willing to fit in and shut up outside of small talk at visits.
I do wonder whether one of Joe Kennedy's long-term plans was to place a descendant on throne via Kathleen Kennedy (which would be why he overrode his wife's strenuous objections to any future Devonshire children being brought up Anglicans).
You already have an Earl of Asquith-Oxford (I don't think there an Earl of Oxford, but there is some complexity that I forget which is why the Asquith title is A-O not O)
(I've only met SamCam once and didn't warm to her. My wife really doesn't like her)
To be fair they are using this moment because they have a de jure veto at this point (until the Germans and French have a quiet de facto word with them behind the scenes). Once into trade talks it's QMV/Euro Parliament where Ireland has about 1-2%% of the votes.
a) Losing vetos is a tricky old thing (remember all those ones G Brown flushed down the pan late one night in Lisbon)
b) Ireland better get used to it because post Brexit that's what they are to the EU: 1-2%
But is the Intl editor of the economist really not au fair with the Anglo Irish Free Trade Agreement? Just wow.
Charles
William
George
Charlotte
{Offspring 3 of William}
So Harry will be 6th in line to the throne - therefore I don't think the whole divorcee business should be an issue.
Also let us note the current heir to the throne is married to a divorcee, he is quite far from the throne in practice now.
#RobotsHaveRights
I wonder what @Justin124's view is, as a republican and fundamentalist christian?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/27/labour-debt-plan-john-mcdonnell-would-cost-270bn-interest/
Chump change.
http://www.worldhistory.biz/sundries/48212-anglo-irish-free-trade-agreement-of-1965.html
In terms of the prison population going up, I suggested unlimited fines, it's currently capped at £20k per illegal and rarely enforced, I would make it a *minimum* 20k per illegal with no maximum - double it with each additional offence. Like speed cameras - make it pay and suddenly it will be a police priority.
I also suggested custodial sentences *for employers* in the most egregious cases. I'm not suggesting rounding up illegals.
Here's what actually happens: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/madina-store-levenshulme-illegal-immigrants-10908825
A slap on the wrist for repeat offenders and a 4k fine per illegal. Cheap at half the price.
Unlimited fines in the first instance and occasional custodial sentences for repeat offenders would act as a powerful deterrent, not an excuse to go around locking up half the employers in the country.
Heavy fines would most likely be sufficient with just one or two token custodial examples made of persistent offenders each year.
As you point out, we already have such laws in place, we simply hardly ever use them. That's where the bounties come in. Heck, link it to the fine if you like. Give the immigrant a work permit and 50% of the fine. I bet there's quite a few who would relish taking money out of an exploitative employer's pocket.
Occasional spot checks could be carried out, but better publicised, using the UK's existing border force, in conjunction with the tip off / bounty system for illegals to provide better intelligence. The thing could be funded by actually imposing the fines set out under existing law. Run it like a business. Make it profitable.
2 . THE PROVISIONS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 45 ( 2 ) SHALL APPLY FROM 1 JANUARY 1974 IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CUSTOMS ARRANGEMENTS IN FORCE BETWEEN IRELAND AND THE UNITED KINGDOM .
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:11972B048
Sorry about the CAPS - its eur-lex
Makes it all the more important the EU get onto discussing the UK's future trade relationship, doesn't it?
I'd agree that the UK system *should* be cheaper, tho.
They are also utterly opaque about who funds them - which means they are funded by people who don’t want you to know about it.
Look I’m left wing, I get that I will disagree with right wing people most of the time.
But front groups like this undermine democracy and should be ignored.
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/a-land-border-would-be-provocative-and-divisive-at-a-time-when-stormont-is-suspended-3712189-Nov2017/
My assumption - and this is only an assumption - is that the Agreement was never formally lapsed or abrogated as it simply became a dead letter with both states in the EEC/EC/EU. If so, it's still an active treaty and could be resurrected both in the discussions with the EU (and Dublin, as appropriate), and also with the WTO as justification for not imposing a border and customs on Ireland if no agreement is reached.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5119817/Record-71-000-foreign-students-admitted-UK-universities.html
Because of Brexit,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/27/universities-blame-brexit-fall-foreign-students/
Reality, bugger all difference...
The number of applicants from the EU 51k, second highest on record. Accepted students from EU countries 650 fewer than last year.
Imagine you acquire a business with 1,000 employees. During your due diligence you make sure that proper procedures are in place for ensuring workers are legal. And then on your first day as owner, it turns out the previous management had not followed procedures with regard to one junior employee.
HMRC would probably reply: Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Can you please send the fine of £20k by x date.
Because that's what they do.
NEW THREAD
Combine this with incentivising illegals to step forward rather than the current system of anonymous tip offs and the system could be vastly improved.
Occasionally illegals are reported by someone with a grudge - this sometimes results in UKBA taking action but it's rare for this to result in deportation, illegals will perhaps claim to be in a relationship with someone here legally or they will find other obstacles to throw in the way of the process. It's impossibly expensive to keep them in custody while their cases are resolved and the police have far more urgent things to do - they are not interested in pursuing people unless more serious crime is involved. So people just move on somewhere else. They live in houses rented by people who are here legally - as long as rents are paid landlords are unlikely to take an interest and if they do ask they will just be told that so and so is staying for a few weeks.
Work and accommodation is found through word of mouth networks which operate in London and, no doubt, other big cities. It's more difficult now that the rules have been tightened but by no means impossible. This kind of thing has been going on for decades and it won't be stopping any time soon.