It's not just about Brexit

[dsr]

This is going to be awkward and the kind of thing that we are going to see repeatedly

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ns-at-risk

Some posters on here like to simplify trade deals down to free trade/tariffs and that's it but it was always going to be things such as equivalence of qualifications, dispute resolution jurisdictions and mechanisms, etc that would be the real problem.

To at least an extent, they are just looking for problems. Signalling systems? Are they seriously suggesting that the signalling system in place will become an issue because of Brexit?

I'm sure countries have had joint ventures in the past without one country being subject to the other country's laws.

[aggi]

To at least an extent, they are just looking for problems. Signalling systems? Are they seriously suggesting that the signalling system in place will become an issue because of Brexit?

I'm sure countries have had joint ventures in the past without one country being subject to the other country's laws.

In ten, maybe twenty, years time when one country wants to upgrade its signalling system and doesn't want a legacy system on the chunnel line (which is of course also used by domestic trains) or wants the other end to be upgraded too then you can well foresee problems. It's been hammered home again and again how big an issue divergence of standards could be in many areas but the response just seems to be "it's OK at the moment, why worry about it".

I guess that's normally because one country isn't withdrawing from a long-established agreement that previously gave a common jurisdiction. I don't necessarily disagree that the ECJ shouldn't be the arbiter, my point is that this is going to come up a lot and shows the complexity of what we are trying to agree.

[Paul Waine]

This is going to be awkward and the kind of thing that we are going to see repeatedly

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ns-at-risk

Some posters on here like to simplify trade deals down to free trade/tariffs and that's it but it was always going to be things such as equivalence of qualifications, dispute resolution jurisdictions and mechanisms, etc that would be the real problem.

Hi aggi, what's wrong with the Treaty of Canterbury? That's the bilateral agreement that was signed by UK and France to provide all the rules for the Channel Tunnel - some years before Maastricht. Has the EU also asked that the Common Travel Arrangements between Ireland and UK to be revised? That's the one that was put in place when Rep of Ireland was set up in 1921.

What arrangements do EU countries have with other "shared infrastructure" that links various EU countries to other non-EU countries? Does ECJ govern all these arrangements?

Guardian article is dated 30-July. I've not been following things closely. Had Barnier already announced that EU was withdrawing their "red line" that ECJ have jurisdiction in EU-UK agreements by that date? Or was that later?

Don't you think it's a bit like a team claiming that they can appoint the referee and make all the VAR decisions...

[Paul Waine]

In ten, maybe twenty, years time when one country wants to upgrade its signalling system and doesn't want a legacy system on the chunnel line (which is of course also used by domestic trains) or wants the other end to be upgraded too then you can well foresee problems. It's been hammered home again and again how big an issue divergence of standards could be in many areas but the response just seems to be "it's OK at the moment, why worry about it".

I guess that's normally because one country isn't withdrawing from a long-established agreement that previously gave a common jurisdiction. I don't necessarily disagree that the ECJ shouldn't be the arbiter, my point is that this is going to come up a lot and shows the complexity of what we are trying to agree.

I'd not seen your post before I quoted your earlier one. I'd assume Treaty of Canterbury already deals with signalling and all those other issues.

However, I may be wrong. Treaties don't always "think ahead." The biggest example is the Lisbon Treaty. It gave the right to leave the EU, but said nothing about how that might be done and the future relationships, if a member state was to decide to leave.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I'd not seen your post before I quoted your earlier one. I'd assume Treaty of Canterbury already deals with signalling and all those other issues.

However, I may be wrong. Treaties don't always "think ahead." The biggest example is the Lisbon Treaty. It gave the right to leave the EU, but said nothing about how that might be done and the future relationships, if a member state was to decide to leave.

They were probably arrogantly thinking no one would want to leave the grand project.

[dsr]

In ten, maybe twenty, years time when one country wants to upgrade its signalling system and doesn't want a legacy system on the chunnel line (which is of course also used by domestic trains) or wants the other end to be upgraded too then you can well foresee problems. It's been hammered home again and again how big an issue divergence of standards could be in many areas but the response just seems to be "it's OK at the moment, why worry about it".

I guess that's normally because one country isn't withdrawing from a long-established agreement that previously gave a common jurisdiction. I don't necessarily disagree that the ECJ shouldn't be the arbiter, my point is that this is going to come up a lot and shows the complexity of what we are trying to agree.

The Gotthard Tunnel between Switzerland and Italy might be a good place to start looking. How do they do it?

[aggi]

Hi aggi, what's wrong with the Treaty of Canterbury? That's the bilateral agreement that was signed by UK and France to provide all the rules for the Channel Tunnel - some years before Maastricht. Has the EU also asked that the Common Travel Arrangements between Ireland and UK to be revised? That's the one that was put in place when Rep of Ireland was set up in 1921.

What arrangements do EU countries have with other "shared infrastructure" that links various EU countries to other non-EU countries? Does ECJ govern all these arrangements?

Guardian article is dated 30-July. I've not been following things closely. Had Barnier already announced that EU was withdrawing their "red line" that ECJ have jurisdiction in EU-UK agreements by that date? Or was that later?

Don't you think it's a bit like a team claiming that they can appoint the referee and make all the VAR decisions...

The Treaty of Canterbury is actually very brief, although even in that there is a reference to the ECJ choosing a chairman in arbitration. Similarly, the Concession Agreement makes reference to following EC laws.

I would guess that the issue is mainly the UK trying to gracefully extricate itself from that kind of thing.

[JohnMcGreal]

The Gotthard Tunnel between Switzerland and Italy might be a good place to start looking. How do they do it?

Switzerland is in the single market and also the Schengen area. It abolished land border controls in 2008.

[aggi]

The Gotthard Tunnel between Switzerland and Italy might be a good place to start looking. How do they do it?

I'm pretty sure that the whole tunnel is in Switzerland. Anyway, there is limited ECJ jurisdiction in Switzerland so similar things may fall under that or one of the other treaties they've spent decades agreeing. It should also be noted that Switzerland are also in the process of "discussing" their framework of integration with the EU so it would be a difficult model to follow.

As I said above, the issue is often that the UK is trying to extricate itself from an agreement that gave the EU more of a say than it is now comfortable with. Expecting the EU to hold their hands up and say, don't worry we'll happily change that for you is a little optimistic. Many people knew it would be an issue but it got brushed under the "Get Brexit done" carpet.

[martin_p]

The Gotthard Tunnel between Switzerland and Italy might be a good place to start looking. How do they do it?

Not have any of it in Italy.

[tiger76]

On a more positive note, UK and Japan look to seal trade deal within monthhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53697547

This would be a significant deal to tie up before we officially leave the EU.

[Paul Waine]

The Treaty of Canterbury is actually very brief, although even in that there is a reference to the ECJ choosing a chairman in arbitration. Similarly, the Concession Agreement makes reference to following EC laws.

I would guess that the issue is mainly the UK trying to gracefully extricate itself from that kind of thing.

Hi aggi, my understanding of the Treaty is that ECJ is only involved in appointing chairman of arbitrators if, within 2 months period, the two arbitrators appointed by the UK and French euro-tunnel commissioners haven't made that appointment... There are also provisions that would preclude a national of UK/France who was holding the ECJ position at the time from fulfilling that role. It's common practice to have an independent party holding the role of appointing an appropriately qualified arbitrator. ECJ has, otherwise no jurisdiction under Treaty of Canterbury.

Agree, EC laws are referenced, but only to the extent that they are law in UK or France, respectively. I'd imagine that EC law only applies with respect to any UK euro-tunnel matters to the extent that UK has carried them forward post-brexit.

[martin_p]

Hi aggi, my understanding of the Treaty is that ECJ is only involved in appointing chairman of arbitrators if, within 2 months period, the two arbitrators appointed by the UK and French euro-tunnel commissioners haven't made that appointment... There are also provisions that would preclude a national of UK/France who was holding the ECJ position at the time from fulfilling that role. It's common practice to have an independent party holding the role of appointing an appropriately qualified arbitrator. ECJ has, otherwise no jurisdiction under Treaty of Canterbury.

Agree, EC laws are referenced, but only to the extent that they are law in UK or France, respectively. I'd imagine that EC law only applies with respect to any UK euro-tunnel matters to the extent that UK has carried them forward post-brexit.

‘My understanding of the Treaty’

You mean what Google has just told you. I suspect you, like me, didn’t know this treaty existed until you read about it in the article above.

[Paul Waine]

‘My understanding of the Treaty’

You mean what Google has just told you. I suspect you, like me, didn’t know this treaty existed until you read about it in the article above.

Hi martin, there's some truth in what you say, but not all correct.

aggi posted the Guardian link and made a comment connecting the proposed EU-UK trade deal with the Channel Tunnel.

So, I took a look at the Guardian article and read the following:

Boris Johnson is facing a major Brexit test with the future of Eurotunnel operations at stake, it has emerged.

The EU wants the UK to drop its opposition to a role for the European court of justice in British affairs to ensure trains keep running between France and the UK after Brexit is implemented on 1 January.

The European commission has this week asked the European parliament and the European council to officially mandate France to urgently negotiate a new bilateral deal with the UK giving the ECJ the powers to resolve future disputes between the two countries as “union law would not longer be applicable to the part of the channel fixed link under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom” after Brexit.

Unless there is an overarching deal with one body responsible for legal disputes regarding the entire 30-mile (50km) tunnel there will be chaos, insiders say.

“It would mean train drivers would have to have two sets of qualifications to drive on the British and French side of the tunnel. It would affect how you operate the tunnel with potential for divergence in the future on everything from signalling, voltage, the radio systems, the signalling system, ventilation, hydraulics. It would be like driving on the left- and right-hand side of the road at the same time,” said a source.

The EU’s plan to keep the ECJ as an arbiter in disputes will be anathema to Downing Street.

I found this interesting and wondered why these things would be the case.

I posted my reply to aggi. The Canterbury Treaty is mentioned in the Guardian article - though at that stage I only asked aggi why EU needed ECJ to govern that bilateral treaty - which existed before Maastricht Treaty. It didn't appear logical to me, or necessary. Certainly nothing to do with trading agreements.

Then aggi responded. He mentioned the (short) length of the Canterbury Treaty and the Concession Agreement. So, it was at that stage that I used google to find copies of both those documents and that's when I read them. Having read them I could confirm that ECJ has a very minor role in the Canterbury Treaty - limited to being a backup to the appointment of the chairman of an arbitration panel, if one is required according to the agreement. Similarly, EU (Community) Law is only relevant to the extent that it has been incorporated in national law.

Did google "tell me" this? or did google merely help my find copies of the agreements?

I'll give you this: it's a pity the Guardian journalist didn't show the knowledge that they could have obtained by reading the CT and CA. If they had done - and assuming their statement about what the EU commission was mandating France to urgently do.... maybe the article would be about why was the EU commission taking that approach? Maybe they would have asked what is the connection between the UK leaving the EU and the Channel Tunnel Treaty and Concession Agreement...

As for the concern that "train drivers would have to have two sets of qualifications...." I'd hope that the train drivers are already trained and qualified to perform their duties all the way from St Pancras to Gare du Nord. Just like we all expect that the drivers, whatever they are driving, are properly qualified to drive safely in both the UK and in countries that drive on the other side of the road.

I am old enough to recall the signing of an agreement between UK and France to give the Channel Tunnel the "go ahead." Yes, I'd need to rely on a little research to add details to me memories. That's allowed, isn't it?

[dsr]

Not have any of it in Italy.

It's a very good point, and it shows again how useful it is to be a nitpickers' mitpicker when it helps you avoid the fundamental point.

The fundamental point being that the Gotthard tunnel is a railway line that goes from outside the EU to inside the EU with no apparent problems. Whether the line has a roof over its head as it crosses the border is not a big deal. There are hundreds if not thousands of railway lines that cross from one country to another around the world, and it seems to be practicable without both countries coming under the same supreme court. So I have no doubt that it can and will be done now, if only because it is being done by people who want it to be done rather than being sniped at by people who don't.

[martin_p]

It's a very good point, and it shows again how useful it is to be a nitpickers' mitpicker when it helps you avoid the fundamental point.

The fundamental point being that the Gotthard tunnel is a railway line that goes from outside the EU to inside the EU with no apparent problems. Whether the line has a roof over its head as it crosses the border is not a big deal. There are hundreds if not thousands of railway lines that cross from one country to another around the world, and it seems to be practicable without both countries coming under the same supreme court. So I have no doubt that it can and will be done now, if only because it is being done by people who want it to be done rather than being sniped at by people who don't.

Well that’s not hard to explain. Switzerland pays into the EU and large parts of EU law apply in Switzerland. Yet somehow it’s still seen as a sovereign nation, funny eh?

[aggi]

Hi aggi, my understanding of the Treaty is that ECJ is only involved in appointing chairman of arbitrators if, within 2 months period, the two arbitrators appointed by the UK and French euro-tunnel commissioners haven't made that appointment... There are also provisions that would preclude a national of UK/France who was holding the ECJ position at the time from fulfilling that role. It's common practice to have an independent party holding the role of appointing an appropriately qualified arbitrator. ECJ has, otherwise no jurisdiction under Treaty of Canterbury.

Agree, EC laws are referenced, but only to the extent that they are law in UK or France, respectively. I'd imagine that EC law only applies with respect to any UK euro-tunnel matters to the extent that UK has carried them forward post-brexit.

But I assume that for a country that's adamant they'll have nothing to do with the ECJ they won't want the option of the ECJ appointing an arbiter. I'm also sure there are many thousands of pages of agreements were haven't seen dictating how the Chunnel works.

It's interesting you mention driving licences. One of the impacts of Brexit is that UK drivers will need to apply for a whole variety of different international driving licences to drive in the EU. It's not that people no longer have the ability to drive, it's that this is the kind of paperwork you have to do to prove these things when you want to have your own systems for everything.

[aggi]

It's a very good point, and it shows again how useful it is to be a nitpickers' mitpicker when it helps you avoid the fundamental point.

The fundamental point being that the Gotthard tunnel is a railway line that goes from outside the EU to inside the EU with no apparent problems. Whether the line has a roof over its head as it crosses the border is not a big deal. There are hundreds if not thousands of railway lines that cross from one country to another around the world, and it seems to be practicable without both countries coming under the same supreme court. So I have no doubt that it can and will be done now, if only because it is being done by people who want it to be done rather than being sniped at by people who don't.

A ballsy response to misplacing a large tunnel. However I did address the fundamental point that it's the UK withdrawing from existing agreements and you chose not to reply to me which is a bit convenient.

[aggi]

On a more positive note, UK and Japan look to seal trade deal within monthhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53697547

This would be a significant deal to tie up before we officially leave the EU.

This does look positive and it's good that we're finally getting ourselves into gear. It will be interesting to see what the extra parts of the agreement beyond the EU one turn out to be

[tiger76]

This does look positive and it's good that we're finally getting ourselves into gear. It will be interesting to see what the extra parts of the agreement beyond the EU one turn out to be

Of course and as always with such things the devil's in the detail, and that's what worries me as this government don't tend to concern themselves with the small print in signed documents.

[dsr]

A ballsy response to misplacing a large tunnel. However I did address the fundamental point that it's the UK withdrawing from existing agreements and you chose not to reply to me which is a bit convenient.

Fundamentally, the UK and France were previously under the same ultimate jurisdiction and now they aren't. It's a change for both sides and both sides are now trading under marginally different conditions. There are hundreds or thousands of similar agreements all round the world re, transborder railways with differing jurisdictions, and systems work just fine; as they will in this case.

[AndrewJB]

Fundamentally, the UK and France were previously under the same ultimate jurisdiction and now they aren't. It's a change for both sides and both sides are now trading under marginally different conditions. There are hundreds or thousands of similar agreements all round the world re, transborder railways with differing jurisdictions, and systems work just fine; as they will in this case.

There we go! Everything’s fine! Never mind reality!

This is how we got here. The crazy promises that we’d get a better deal than we had. “Easiest deal in history!!!!” And now, “other people have it so we can too!”

“Brexit! I’d like you to meet Reality...”

[nil_desperandum]

It's a very good point, and it shows again how useful it is to be a nitpickers' mitpicker when it helps you avoid the fundamental point.

The fundamental point being that the Gotthard tunnel is a railway line that goes from outside the EU to inside the EU with no apparent problems.

"The fundamental point being that the Gotthard tunnel is a railway line that goes from outside the EU to inside the EU with no apparent problems" .......... because Switzerland is part of the Schengen Area. Surely that's the main underlying point?
(The UK isn't and that's the fundamental difference)

[GodIsADeeJay81]

There we go! Everything’s fine! Never mind reality!

This is how we got here. The crazy promises that we’d get a better deal than we had. “Easiest deal in history!!!!” And now, “other people have it so we can too!”

“Brexit! I’d like you to meet Reality...”

The reality that's being pointed out is that there are other places where jurisdiction is shared or changes and things have been worked out and are fine.

This is something you're struggling with for whatever reason.

[nil_desperandum]

The reality that's being pointed out is that there are other places where jurisdiction is shared or changes and things have been worked out and are fine.

This is something you're struggling with for whatever reason.

I doubt he is missing the point. The point being - as several have pointed out, that we've had agreements / arrangements / protocols in place for decades, and none of it rolls over automatically so we have to try to replicate it or improve upon it.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I doubt he is missing the point. The point being - as several have pointed out, that we've had agreements / arrangements / protocols in place for decades, and none of it rolls over automatically so we have to try to replicate it or improve upon it.

Yeah and they will be sorted out, just needs people to get on with it.

We've had 4yrs to get a grip on this sort of stuff, but we were hindered by rubbish negotiation teams under May and clearly Camerons lot didn't bother drawing up all the correct plans prior to the referendum because they arrogantly believed that remain would win by a landslide.

The fact we are having to cram it all in within a short space of time is unfortunately just one of those things, but here we are.

[Paul Waine]

But I assume that for a country that's adamant they'll have nothing to do with the ECJ they won't want the option of the ECJ appointing an arbiter. I'm also sure there are many thousands of pages of agreements were haven't seen dictating how the Chunnel works.

It's interesting you mention driving licences. One of the impacts of Brexit is that UK drivers will need to apply for a whole variety of different international driving licences to drive in the EU. It's not that people no longer have the ability to drive, it's that this is the kind of paperwork you have to do to prove these things when you want to have your own systems for everything.

It's no "big deal" to have a neutral 3rd party to have the role of appointing the chairman of arbitrators - especially when they are limited to choosing between the nominations of the two parties to the matter to be decided by arbitration. It's common amongst agreements that agree to resolve disputed items by arbitration that a neutral person holds this role. Check out the ICC International Court of Arbitration in Paris if you want to know more. I've negotiated a number of commercial agreements that included reference to ICC International Court of Arbitration. This was the case whether the agreement was between two companies in England or companies in England and other countries around the world.

Yes, I got an International Driving License in March 2019 for a trip to Spain in April. Turned out I didn't need it. I'm not going to criticise member countries of the EU for requiring people from 3rd party countries to carry a document they can read in their own language. Yes, otherwise unnecessary. Maybe sometime in the future the EU member states will drop this requirement.... or, maybe not.

Same procedures re International Driving Permits applied in earlier times. I forget date was this was dropped.

[Spijed]

Yeah and they will be sorted out, just needs people to get on with it.

We've had 4yrs to get a grip on this sort of stuff, but we were hindered by rubbish negotiation teams under May and clearly Camerons lot didn't bother drawing up all the correct plans prior to the referendum because they arrogantly believed that remain would win by a landslide.

The fact we are having to cram it all in within a short space of time is unfortunately just one of those things, but here we are.

Trouble is, getting things sorted are going to cost the UK far more for the privilege of leaving the EU:

Remember when Boris and everyone else said there would be no extra paperwork. Well, actually it seems that for certain industries red tape will grow ten fold.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-53685266

[martin_p]

The fact we are having to cram it all in within a short space of time is unfortunately just one of those things, but here we are.

No, it’s the choice of the British government (there I go ‘nitpicking’ again).

[AndrewJB]

The reality that's being pointed out is that there are other places where jurisdiction is shared or changes and things have been worked out and are fine.

This is something you're struggling with for whatever reason.

Like we just easily rolled over the EU trade agreement with Japan?

Lots of little details we have to work out and sign on the dotted line. Good thing we don’t have a time limit on any of it. That would be the ultimate proof we have a government of thickos. As you’ve said, ballsed up four years already. Wrecking our country - sorry! Taking back control isn’t so important that it can’t be postponed another year so these details can be properly attended to.

[CombatClaret]

-55,000 dead in Pandemic
-Economy shredded
-Unemployment about to soar
- No Brexit promises kept.

-Today's papers: Look migrants!!

[Devils_Advocate]

The good news for migrants is the EU law that currently allows us to return migrants to France will end in December, so once we have taken back control of our borders it will actually be impossible to send them back.

Patel has a cunning plan though to send in our Navy to sort it out and turn them back. Unfortunately the MOD has said the plan has 'more holes than a slice of Swiss cheese’ and commented that 'It’s beyond absurd to think that we should be deploying multi-million pound ships & elite soldiers to deal with desperate people barely staying afloat on rubber dinghies”

Just another day in the life of this govt Brexit sh*tshow

[GodIsADeeJay81]

The good news for migrants is the EU law that currently allows us to return migrants to France will end in December, so once we have taken back control of our borders it will actually be impossible to send them back.

Patel has a cunning plan though to send in our Navy to sort it out and turn them back. Unfortunately the MOD has said the plan has 'more holes than a slice of Swiss cheese’ and commented that 'It’s beyond absurd to think that we should be deploying multi-million pound ships & elite soldiers to deal with desperate people barely staying afloat on rubber dinghies”

Just another day in the life of this govt Brexit sh*tshow

Good job we spent the last 16 yrs returning illegal migrants then...

Oh wait we didn't.

[clarethomer]

IDS.jpg"Meanwhile, in other news of breathtaking hypocrisy and intellectual vacuity, Duncan Smith is whining about the withdrawal agreement being bad for the UK. This is the agreement that he and his party unanimously voted for just months ago. This is the agreement that he and his party were so confident about that he and they voted to reduce the time available for parliamentary debate to just three days, thereby ensuring that neither he nor anyone else has actually read it. This is the agreement that led to those who opposed it or who asked for time for proper scrutiny being thrown out of the party. This is the agreement which Johnson himself signed with obscene swagger at “getting Brexit done.” This is the agreement that our dribbling press fêted as some sort of triumph of International Statesmanship. This is the agreement that we were told was oven ready. This is the agreement on which the landslide victory of the 2019 General Election was built.

This agreement represents the “best” of this shallow, ignorant, incompetent, lying regime to which we have inexplicably handed unassailable power to damage the country for the next four and a half years.

No, I am not getting over it.

Brexiteers have created a totally unnecessary catastrophe. Until they own it, we cannot move on." (from a friend)

It's quite an interesting point this and I'm a little confused of what sits behind the motivation to say this.

The figure he has quoted appears to be nonsense.

This video probably is the easiest way of summarising all the information I could find on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr41FbfaOWw

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Like we just easily rolled over the EU trade agreement with Japan?

Lots of little details we have to work out and sign on the dotted line. Good thing we don’t have a time limit on any of it. That would be the ultimate proof we have a government of thickos. As you’ve said, ballsed up four years already. Wrecking our country - sorry! Taking back control isn’t so important that it can’t be postponed another year so these details can be properly attended to.

You're just ranting again, it really wouldn't matter what the gov did, you'd still be on here dribbling away

Is Boris your dad?

[Devils_Advocate]

Good job we spent the last 16 yrs returning illegal migrants then...

Oh wait we didn't.

Wrong, we do return plenty of illegal migrants to France under the current EU law.

[clarethomer]

You're just ranting again, it really wouldn't matter what the gov did, you'd still be on here dribbling away

Spot on - if he had got his way, he would have been defending the 'thicko' for people not getting their free broadband. There is no point even in engaging with him.

He won't accept when his views are factually incorrect because it doesn't matter to him. He kneels at the shrine of the politically far left. It's a bit like telling a BNP member to recognise that multiculturalism is a positive for this country. His views are so fixed, you are wasting your breath.

[Devils_Advocate]

Funny how AndrewJB always look to challenge others arguments and counter with his own arguments and actively invite discussion based on opinions and facts about the subject matter yet all he seems to get in return is ad hominem attacks.

Seems like as soon as you force these Johnson sycophants and Brexit loons into a sensible polite debate on the subject matter they are completely stumped and just revert to name calling

The amount of projecting that goes on from people like clarethomer would be quite funny if it wasn't so pathetic and the even sadder thing is people like him have absolutely no self awareness around this kind of behaviour

[Zlatan]

Just don’t mention the Vietnamese...

[clarethomer]

Funny how AndrewJB always look to ignore others arguments and counter with his own arguments and opinions about the subject matter yet all he seems to get in return is being called out for not addressing the lack of factual information.

Seems like as soon as you force these politically more centred posters into a non-sensible tirade of opinion and factless debates on the subject matter they are completely fed up and just revert to calling him out for it.

Just corrected it for you.

To call someone out for name calling and having no self awareness at a time you have just done this yourself.. good on you for being as pathetic as me

If people want to invite debate, at least properly debate it rather than ignore the fact that you have been proven to be misinformed several times and just move on to the next opinionated - factless tirade of drivel.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Wrong, we do return plenty of illegal migrants to France under the current EU law.

Screenshot_20200808_112322_com.android.chrome.jpg (345.82 KiB) Viewed 1898 times

[RingoMcCartney]

You're just ranting again, it really wouldn't matter what the gov did, you'd still be on here dribbling away

Is Boris your dad?

Cheers for that Sid, saves me saying it.

Just a quick point. Serco , last year, were awarded a 4 BILLION POUND for a 10 YEAR CONTRACT using tax payers money from the Tory government. This is for housing illegal immigrants. Some of whom are dispersed on air conditioned coaches to places like the 4 star hotel at Bromsgrove, fully booked up for at least 12 months. Mike Graham on Talkradio has being doing great journalism on this and has uncovered a multi billion pound industry built on the illegal trafficking of people by exploitative and ruthless criminal gangs. They are charging illegal immigrants upto 5000 quid a pop. On this side of the channel, Serco , run by brother of remainer Tory grandee, nicholas soames, Rupert Soames are literally making billions off the back of it. His research has shed a light on "City of Sanctuary" status, that towns are adopting. It effectively means that Serco contacts local councils who are given financial rewards for housing new arrivals AHEAD of locals in the housing queue. Several local councillors rang in to his Talkradio show to confirm this to be fact.

A ten year contract? Mmmm, doesn't sound like the tories are planning stopping this racket any time soon.

[RingoMcCartney]

Just corrected it for you.

To call someone out for name calling and having no self awareness at a time you have just done this yourself.. good on you for being as pathetic as me

If people want to invite debate, at least properly debate it rather than ignore the fact that you have been proven to be misinformed several times and just move on to the next opinionated - factless tirade of drivel.

The Left -

Claim to LOVE diversity.

They HATE diversity of opinion.

[Rowls]

Switzerland is in the single market and also the Schengen area. It abolished land border controls in 2008.

Hmmmmmm. When did you last go to Switzerland?

There were plenty of border controls when I was last there.

[Swizzlestick]

The Left -

Claim to LOVE diversity.

They HATE diversity of opinion.

Says the guy who goes running off to the mods when a thread isn’t going as he likes it.

[RingoMcCartney]

Says the guy who goes running off to the mods when a thread isn’t going as he likes it.

1, Different opinion.

2, Trolling using vile, personal and groundless accusations, aimed at other posters children.

There's is difference. A big difference.

[martin_p]

Good job we spent the last 16 yrs returning illegal migrants then...

Oh wait we didn't.

I’m not sure what your point is here. We had a power that we didn’t use to it’s fullest extent and at the end of the year we won’t have the power anyway. That’s making things worse surely?

[Devils_Advocate]

To call someone out for name calling and having no self awareness at a time you have just done this yourself.. good on you for being as pathetic as me

I wasn't calling you out for name calling. I was highlighting how you revert to name calling and adhominem attacks when somebody sticks to the subject and forces a serious discussion on each others arguments.

I have no problem with you or anyone else calling me names as you get what you give out and the self awareness bit was about how you accuse him of things and call him names about things that really apply to you and others like you i.e. projecting

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I’m not sure what your point is here. We had a power that we didn’t use to it’s fullest extent and at the end of the year we won’t have the power anyway. That’s making things worse surely?

The EU has repeatedly failed to secure its borders, it's almost like they can't come up with a proper plan to do it, which is odd for such a big trading bloc.
If course due to the lack of Borders within the EU, once these migrants are in there is no way of keeping track of them.

Due to the agreement we've signed up too, we're obliged to take x amount of these migrants.
We don't deport them like we should be and nor does anyone else in the EU I suspect.
It's completely disorganised.

Once we are out properly we can only hope we finally have a gov who will do what's needed.

I'd also like to think they won't allow 'kids' in on their own when it's clear as day that they're actually full grown adults.

[Devils_Advocate]

Screenshot_20200808_112322_com.android.chrome.jpg

So you've quoted statistics from 4 years ago that shows we do return migrants back after your original point was we didn't return migrants back - gee I bet you weren't missed on the debating team