Hard Brexit

[Boris]

3 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Is the Eurostar agreement a bilateral agreement between the UK & France or an agreement between the UK & the EU?

I think it has nothing to do with the EU as it's an agreement between the UK & France and was agreed long before the present EU came into being, I've not checked so I could be wrong about that.

 

I have no idea.  I was merely mooting that the French would need a reason to shut the tunnel, and if it was based on there not being reciprocal travel agreements in place re UK and the EU (with France being particularly hardcore wanting that sort of things sorted first).  If passports are an issue post no-deal brexit, or still to be resolved post brexit, then I think that's what the french minister was on about.  Leaving the EU means we are leaving a nyriad of agreements that allow our freedom of movement etc  Not to mention safety etc etc.  If we have left, then we aren't covered, so the French, however harsh it seems, may be within their rights.

 

I guess it's perhaps a bit like not getting round to renewing your insurance policy, it lapses, you want to claim but can't as you aren't covered.

1 minute ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Unlikely as the French would have closed the border.

 

However, given that the French shareholder is state owned, I expect that the U.K. Government might be offering them free advice on sex and travel. 

 

Hahaha.  Like it!

[Francis Albert]

28 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

I have no idea.  I was merely mooting that the French would need a reason to shut the tunnel, and if it was based on there not being reciprocal travel agreements in place re UK and the EU (with France being particularly hardcore wanting that sort of things sorted first).  If passports are an issue post no-deal brexit, or still to be resolved post brexit, then I think that's what the french minister was on about.  Leaving the EU means we are leaving a nyriad of agreements that allow our freedom of movement etc  Not to mention safety etc etc.  If we have left, then we aren't covered, so the French, however harsh it seems, may be within their rights.

 

I guess it's perhaps a bit like not getting round to renewing your insurance policy, it lapses, you want to claim but can't as you aren't covered.

 

Hahaha.  Like it!

Reciprocal travel arrangements between France (and most of the rest of the EU) existed before Britain joined the EU and remain today. I don't think they have anything to do with the EU. French and other EU citizens (except in the case of Ireland)  need a valid passport to enter the UK. UK citizens need a valid UK passport to enter France or any other member state (except Ireland). I am not aware that anyone has suggested that this will change, deal or no deal. Rights of residence are another matter but have nothing to do with travel arrangements.

 

(unless the EU plans to add visa requirements to its no deal bottom line?)

 

 

Edited September 14, 2018 by Francis Albert

[jack D and coke]

Sorry don’t want to derail this thread but I’ve always found the arguments the same for brexit as Scottish independence. This short clip from QT always reminds me of the Indy vote with all the threats that came our way.  If people make a democratic choice and are subject to threats and punishment for it then why would you want to be part of it at all?

Thoughts?

[Boris]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

Reciprocal travel arrangements between France (and most of the rest of the EU) existed before Britain joined the EU and remain today. I don't think they have anything to do with the EU. French and other EU citizens (except in the case of Ireland)  need a valid passport to enter the UK. UK citizens need a valid UK passport to enter France or any other member state (except Ireland). I am not aware that anyone has suggested that this will change, deal or no deal. Rights of residence are another matter but have nothing to do with travel arrangements.

 

(unless the EU plans to add visa requirements to its no deal bottom line?)

 

 

 

It may not be passposrts, I was just using that as an example used in an article I read earlier.

 

It may be to do with the mode of transport - flights especially with the airworthiness sign offs etc.  Is their similar with trains?  I don't know.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 hour ago, jack D and coke said:

Sorry don’t want to derail this thread but I’ve always found the arguments the same for brexit as Scottish independence. This short clip from QT always reminds me of the Indy vote with all the threats that came our way.  If people make a democratic choice and are subject to threats and punishment for it then why would you want to be part of it at all?

Thoughts?

 

I'll tell you what I've always thought, if the EU is such a wonderful club to be in, then why are they so shit scared of anybody else following the UK and leaving.

Also If the EU is such a wonderful club to be in, then why are the calls to leave it growing louder and louder and stronger all over the EU, as has been seen with the rise of right-wing eurosceptic parties.

[Francis Albert]

24 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

It may not be passposrts, I was just using that as an example used in an article I read earlier.

 

It may be to do with the mode of transport - flights especially with the airworthiness sign offs etc.  Is their similar with trains?  I don't know.

There are lots of things we don't know. But we need to make a judgment about what is likely to happen, or has even has the  remotest chance of happening, and what politicians and others with an interest threaten might happen. So maybe the Channel Tunnel will close. Maybe EU flights to the UK will cease. Maybe Ireland will indeed launch its airforce to impose a no-flight zone over Irish territory. Maybe (because two can play the game) the UK will introduce new licence requirements that stop German, French and Italian cars being imported to the UK.

Pigs might fly but I am not put off flying by the threat of a disastrous mid air collision with a pig.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

10 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

There are lots of things we don't know. But we need to make a judgment about what is likely to happen, or has even has the  remotest chance of happening, and what politicians and others with an interest threaten might happen. So maybe the Channel Tunnel will close. Maybe EU flights to the UK will cease. Maybe Ireland will indeed launch its airforce to impose a no-flight zone over Irish territory. Maybe (because two can play the game) the UK will introduce new licence requirements that stop German, French and Italian cars being imported to the UK.

Pigs might fly but I am not put off flying by the threat of a disastrous mid air collision with a pig.

 

Exactly, all we hear about is all of the bad things which are going to happen to the UK, but very few people mention that the UK can easily play funny bu@@ers with the EU and stop EU trucks driving on UK roads without the right paperwork, or EU planes flying over British airspace that they and their pilots must comply to a certain standard, all of this is pretty much the same as some in the EU are threatening the UK with, well it works both ways, but that's not the way it gets reported in the media, it's all about the doom and gloom which is going to befall the UK.

[jack D and coke]

1 hour ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

I'll tell you what I've always thought, if the EU is such a wonderful club to be in, then why are they so shit scared of anybody else following the UK and leaving.

Also If the EU is such a wonderful club to be in, then why are the calls to leave it growing louder and louder and stronger all over the EU, as has been seen with the rise of right-wing eurosceptic parties.

Don’t you think it all sounds a bit familiar? It’s exactly what WM was doing to Scotland to scare us out of a Yes. 

Is WM terrified we leave?

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Just now, jack D and coke said:

Don’t you think it all sounds a bit familiar? It’s exactly what WM was doing to Scotland to scare us out of a Yes. 

Is WM terrified we leave?

 

Of course it's familiar, it's worked before so why not use the same tactics again, you never know the public just might fall for it again.

 

[Francis Albert]

45 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Don’t you think it all sounds a bit familiar? It’s exactly what WM was doing to Scotland to scare us out of a Yes. 

Is WM terrified we leave?

Very familiar. With much the same effect on me. I had no say in indyref as it is a long time since I lived in Scotland but although opposed to the SNP,  by the end of the campaign I was at least half hoping for a Yes outcome. Similarly Project Fear mark 2 made me less strong in my leave preference, and the project fear squared now occurring and the contempt being shown for a democratic vote  means I would vote leave if there is a "people's vote" (what exactly was the first vote?).

 

 

 

Edited September 14, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

And how arrogant do you have to be to say both that "they didn't know what they were voting for" and that "they didn't vote for this". So you know what they were voting for but they didn't?

[jake]

Tony Blair 

John Major

Nick Clegg

 

On a mission apparently.

Shotty

[Boris]

3 minutes ago, jake said:

Tony Blair 

John Major

Nick Clegg

 

On a mission apparently.

Shotty

Excellent use of "shotty" there, Jake. 

 

Genuine lol. It's a great word! 

 

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

Very familiar. With much the same effect on me. I had no say in indyref as it is a long time since I lived in Scotland but although opposed to the SNP,  by the end of the campaign I was at least half hoping for a Yes outcome. Similarly Project Fear mark 2 made me less strong in my leave preference, and the project fear squared now occurring and the contempt being shown for a democratic vote  means I would vote leave if there is a "people's vote" (what exactly was the first vote?).

 

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

I meant remain of course. (Before Uly gets on my case again ... although with luck I might have confused him)

 

 

 

[jake]

24 minutes ago, Boris said:

Excellent use of "shotty" there, Jake. 

 

Genuine lol. It's a great word! 

 

Sound Boris

[Dawnrazor]

44 minutes ago, Boris said:

Excellent use of "shotty" there, Jake. 

 

Genuine lol. It's a great word! 

 

"oh the banter" [insert photo o' them two effeminate blokes from that Scottish comedy scetch show] 

I love when a "shotty" or a "Nash" or a "paps" or "nyaff" pops up ? on a thread, never hear it down here? it's like a wee taste of home, a bit like a caramel log or a tea cake??

Edited September 14, 2018 by Dawnrazor

[jake]

15 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

"oh the banter" [insert photo o' them two effeminate blokes from that Scottish comedy scetch show] 

I love when a "shotty" or a "Nash" or a "paps" or "nyaff" pops up ? on a thread, never hear it down here? it's like a wee taste of home, a bit like a caramel log or a tea cake??

Love the banter sketches on chewing the fat.

Quality.

Never heard anyone up here use shotty for years.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

7 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Well we are talking about your hero and his predictions about what would happen after Brexit not the ERG. Lets add in his predictions of doom post referendum. Did any of them come to fruition? Let's even talk about his pretty woeful management of the BofE. 

My hero? Not really.

Sterling dropped post referendum which was widely predicted. It's still volatile now when news comes out one way or t' other.

He's able to run economic models on the information available and as I said earlier none is forthcoming from Boris, Jacob and the boys. Two years plus after they won and feck all. Why's that?

His management of the B of E can't be that bad or he wouldn't be there.

 

[Ulysses]

15 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

I know you value precision.

 

I value honesty, which is why I gave up taking you seriously a long, long time ago.

 

TBCH.

[Ulysses]

16 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

So, myself, Alphonse and the tens of thousands of other Brits who fly to Ireland are being forced to go through passport control when none of us need to be?

 

It's not bonkers, it's big brother.

 

 

 

You've repeatedly posted about your experience and your opinion.  I've posted independent verification of what I've described, including a link to the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service of the Department of Justice.

 

Short of giving you electric shocks to your nuts, or paying you big bucks to read the links I have posted, I have no idea what it will take for you to realise that the legal position is as I have described it, and not as you have described it.  But whether you realise it or not doesn't really matter; it is what it is.

 

Cheers. 

[Ulysses]

10 hours ago, Boris said:

 

It may not be passposrts, I was just using that as an example used in an article I read earlier.

 

It may be to do with the mode of transport - flights especially with the airworthiness sign offs etc.  Is their similar with trains?  I don't know.

 

Apparently the British were already concerned about Eurostar not being able to operate before the French Minister for European Affairs made her remarks.  There was some story in a couple of media outlets about a week previously.

 

It may have something to do with EU regulations on transport, including trains, no longer applying to the UK.

 

Maybe both she and her British counterparts know something the rest of us don't?

[Jambo-Jimbo]

6 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

You've repeatedly posted about your experience and your opinion.  I've posted independent verification of what I've described, including a link to the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service of the Department of Justice.

 

Short of giving you electric shocks to your nuts, or paying you big bucks to read the links I have posted, I have no idea what it will take for you to realise that the legal position is as I have described it, and not as you have described it.  But whether you realise it or not doesn't really matter; it is what it is.

 

Cheers. 

 

The legal position is one thing but that is not what is being practised on the ground by either the British or Irish authorities and it was something I was totally unaware of before and I'd hazard that very few people knew about either.

[Seymour M Hersh]

[Francis Albert]

7 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

You've repeatedly posted about your experience and your opinion.  I've posted independent verification of what I've described, including a link to the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service of the Department of Justice.

 

Short of giving you electric shocks to your nuts, or paying you big bucks to read the links I have posted, I have no idea what it will take for you to realise that the legal position is as I have described it, and not as you have described it.  But whether you realise it or not doesn't really matter; it is what it is.

 

Cheers. 

I am not sure anyone has challenged your well sudbstantiated opinion on the law. But as everyone knows what the law says and what actually happens in practice are not always the same things.

 

Of course those who have described their experiences may I suppose be lying.

[Francis Albert]

8 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

I value honesty, which is why I gave up taking you seriously a long, long time ago.

 

TBCH.

And I value discourse where people do not, with no evidence or substantiation (or even explanation for their view) repeatedly accuse someone of being  a habitual liar.

Edited September 15, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

Another albeit rather weak Project Fear example  from The Guardian. It reported  yesterday that one of the new Government papers on "no deal" contingences says that UK motorists may if travelling on the Continent have to get an International Driving Permit. In some cases depending on where they are travelling to they may have to get two different versions. These can be picked up at the Post Office for the princely sum of £5.50 each. The side bar headline accompanying this news was "Nightmare For Motorists".

 

I am old enough to remember IDPs but thankfully the trauma of getting one has not haunted me as a recurring nightmare.

 

Incidentally in the same paper the Government says unequivocally that whatever the EU requires the UK will continue to  accept the driving licences of EU countries as valid in the UK.

Edited September 15, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

25 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Another albeit rather weak Project Fear example  from The Guardian. It reported  yesterday that one of the new Government papers on "no deal" contingences says that UK motorists may if travelling on the Continent have to get an International Driving Permit. In some cases depending on where they are travelling to they may have to get two different versions. These can be picked up at the Post Office for the princely sum of £5.50 each. The side bar headline accompanying this news was "Nightmare For Motorists".

 

I am old enough to remember IDPs but thankfully the trauma of getting one has not haunted me as a recurring nightmare.

 

Incidentally in the same paper the Government says unequivocally that whatever the EU requires the UK will continue to  accept the driving licences of EU countries as valid in the UK.

In view of certain allegations I thought I better fact-check. It wasn't the Guardian and must have been some other media outlet. Apologies.

But I did see it somewhere. Honest. It might however on reflection  have been "Nightmare for Drivers".

Edited September 15, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Jambo-Jimbo]

3 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Another albeit rather weak Project Fear example  from The Guardian. It reported  yesterday that one of the new Government papers on "no deal" contingences says that UK motorists may if travelling on the Continent have to get an International Driving Permit. In some cases depending on where they are travelling to they may have to get two different versions. These can be picked up at the Post Office for the princely sum of £5.50 each. The side bar headline accompanying this news was "Nightmare For Motorists".

 

I am old enough to remember IDPs but thankfully the trauma of getting one has not haunted me as a recurring nightmare.

 

Incidentally in the same paper the Government says unequivocally that whatever the EU requires the UK will continue to  accept the driving licences of EU countries as valid in the UK.

 

It was the same the other day with the big headlines on TV that in the event of a 'no deal' Brits traveling abroad might need at least 3 months left on their passport and data roaming charges might return.

 

Whilst it is possible to travel within the EU right up to the expiry date on your passport in practice most places require travellers to have at least 3 to 6 months time left on your passport, so the net result will be little to no change and even if you needed to renew your passport then you'd have needed to have renewed it within the next 3-6 months anyway.

 

Data roaming charges, well both myself and the wife are with 3 and we enjoy no data roaming charges in 71 countries all over the world, 3 & Vodafone have said that in the event of a 'no deal' brexit they will not re-impose data roaming charges, so it's a complete non story as far as 3 & Vodafone customers are concerned, besides if your not with 3 or Vodafone it is easy just to turn your data roaming off.

 

So all it was was more scare scare panic panic project fear crap, which when you look closer at the details will have little or no effect upon the vast majority of people whether there's a deal or not.

[AlphonseCapone]

On 14/09/2018 at 08:41, Francis Albert said:

He predicted immediate negative consequences of a vote to leave which didn't happen.

The faith people put in the ability of experts to make predictions always surprises me given their track record.

Given all the uncertainties involved in predicting a 35% fall in property values I think large pinches of salt are justified.

One uncertainty is whether Gordon Brown's current prediction of another major global financial collapse, in particular for the banks, is right.

On the other hand dear old Gordon, with all the great resources and minds of the Treasury and Bank of England and many other the nation's greatest economists at his disposal failed to spot the coming of, or even seemingly serious risk of, the last such financial collapse. Now that his resources (relatively speaking) amount to access to North Queensferry public library, why should we have great faith in his current assessment?

 

That wasn't a prediction. That 35% was an absolute, worst case apocalyptic scenario that they ran through the stress test models to see how that banks would cope, which they found they could actually deal with. He didn't say he thought this was likely whatsoever, when in fact the point was to go to a value well beyond what was likely. You've taken the newspaper headlines at face value with this one. 

[Francis Albert]

7 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

That wasn't a prediction. That 35% was an absolute, worst case apocalyptic scenario that they ran through the stress test models to see how that banks would cope, which they found they could actually deal with. He didn't say he thought this was likely whatsoever, when in fact the point was to go to a value well beyond what was likely. You've taken the newspaper headlines at face value with this one. 

Fair enough and apologies to Mr Carney. But that is not remotely  how it was reported in the media, well beyond the headlines. In fact the first thing that came up on my screen this morning was an article disabusing "millenials" of the idea that the prediction that property values could fall by 35% was good news for them.

[Francis Albert]

On reflection no apologies to Mr Carney. He should correct those who have misinterpreted what he said. ""One of his starkest Brexit warnings yet" is how the article I referred to described it, which is fairly typical of how it has been reported.

[Pans Jambo]

 

 

[Seymour M Hersh]

10 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

That wasn't a prediction. That 35% was an absolute, worst case apocalyptic scenario that they ran through the stress test models to see how that banks would cope, which they found they could actually deal with. He didn't say he thought this was likely whatsoever, when in fact the point was to go to a value well beyond what was likely. You've taken the newspaper headlines at face value with this one. 

 

In other words it was nothing to do with Brexit but has been used by remainers to scare people. Tragic imo. 

[Francis Albert]

The Observer takes 2000 plus words ( a fair proportion of them being "crash out") to insist  that a second referendum must happen. It says the vote should be a choice between accepting whatever deal is negotiated or staying in. The idea that a large third constituency ( those who had the naivety to believe they were voting to actually leave) who may think "crashing out" with no deal is better than a deal that is Brexit in name only, should have any say is contemptuously dismissed in a few words, basically because in the Observer's view it would be a disaster. The Observer of course claims its case is "respecting Democracy".

[Ulysses]

^^^^

Jaysus, ardent remainers need to quit reading the Observer. 

[jake]

My goodness some folk are obsessed with posters they say they stopped conversing with because they are not honest.

^^^^^^^^^^

[jake]

Got to laugh at the mayor of London.

And those who share his views.

 

Don't respect the vote but want to have another.

 

The propaganda on this issue really is an eyeopener.

And despite the personal attacks on Francis including Ulysses calling him dishonest he has imo highlighted this .

 

Regardless if you agree with leave or remain you would need to be blind not to see project fear in action.

[Boris]

10 hours ago, jake said:

 

Regardless if you agree with leave or remain you would need to be blind not to see project fear in action.

So brexit will not upset our economy or standard of living Jake?

 

I hope not, I really do. Despite all these prophecies of doom from business leaders, the BoE etc. But what do they know?

 

Is it project fear? Why are there no estimates or prophecies from the Brexiteers? Why aren't they telling us how good it's going to be? You know, to balance out project fear. Where is this info?

[Francis Albert]

54 minutes ago, Boris said:

So brexit will not upset our economy or standard of living Jake?

 

I hope not, I really do. Despite all these prophecies of doom from business leaders, the BoE etc. But what do they know?

 

Is it project fear? Why are there no estimates or prophecies from the Brexiteers? Why aren't they telling us how good it's going to be? You know, to balance out project fear. Where is this info?

There will I think certainly be short term negative effects (both for us and the 27). As to the long term no-one knows for sure and no-one ever will. There are some business leaders and economists (including a former Governor of the BoE) who disagree with the majority view that we are "self-harming" in the longer term, and majorities are not always right (as most seem to think the majority in the referendum were not!).

 

But the reporting of the risks associated with so called "cliff edge" (or "crashing out") and which need to be addressed and mitigated (the point of recent Government papers) has certainly been part of "Project Fear". Neither side will admit it because to do so would reduce the pressure to do a deal but just as a deal will be followed by a transition so will a no deal. As soon as it is clear there is no deal attention will switch to transitional arrangements, in many areas essentially keeping what is in place until alternatives can be put in place. The Channel Tunnel will not close, flights to and from Britain will not be grounded, and the EU will not refuse to tell us of an impending meteorite or space debris impact on 1st April next year.

 

[JamboX2]

On 15/09/2018 at 08:24, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

The legal position is one thing but that is not what is being practised on the ground by either the British or Irish authorities and it was something I was totally unaware of before and I'd hazard that very few people knew about either.

 

So border forces are acting illegally and ultra vires then? And this isn't breaking news?

[JamboX2]

On 15/09/2018 at 09:23, Francis Albert said:

I am not sure anyone has challenged your well sudbstantiated opinion on the law. But as everyone knows what the law says and what actually happens in practice are not always the same things.

 

Of course those who have described their experiences may I suppose be lying.

 

So government authorities are acting illegally and out with the law? I'm sorry but that's a very big statement. 

[JamboX2]

13 hours ago, jake said:

Got to laugh at the mayor of London.

And those who share his views.

 

Don't respect the vote but want to have another.

 

The propaganda on this issue really is an eyeopener.

And despite the personal attacks on Francis including Ulysses calling him dishonest he has imo highlighted this .

 

Regardless if you agree with leave or remain you would need to be blind not to see project fear in action.

 

It's interesting that Tim Shipman of the Sunday Times - a man well connected to the big Brexit players - reported yesterday that Sajid Javid has called for a post-Brexit shock and awe budget slashing taxes further and ripping up environmental and workers protections to boost the economy...

 

 

...interestingly the TUC and other groups warned this was more than likely if we voted Leave.

Edited September 17, 2018 by JamboX2

[jake]

37 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

It's interesting that Tim Shipman of the Sunday Times - a man well connected to the big Brexit players - reported yesterday that Sajid Javid has called for a post-Brexit shock and awe budget slashing taxes further and ripping up environmental and workers protections to boost the economy...

 

 

...interestingly the TUC and other groups warned this was more than likely if we voted Leave.

More likely if we vote a Tory government back in .

We have not lost the right to vote.

 

[jake]

42 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

It's interesting that Tim Shipman of the Sunday Times - a man well connected to the big Brexit players - reported yesterday that Sajid Javid has called for a post-Brexit shock and awe budget slashing taxes further and ripping up environmental and workers protections to boost the economy...

 

 

...interestingly the TUC and other groups warned this was more than likely if we voted Leave.

The zero hour contract.

The exploitation of migrant workers.

All happening now.

 

[JamboX2]

1 hour ago, jake said:

More likely if we vote a Tory government back in .

We have not lost the right to vote.

 

 

Elections are every 5 years. Not whenever you want to change it. What if by then it's too late?

 

No more social chapter protections...

[JamboX2]

1 hour ago, jake said:

The zero hour contract.

The exploitation of migrant workers.

All happening now.

 

 

And more likely to get worst in the coming race to the bottom.

[Francis Albert]

2 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

So government authorities are acting illegally and out with the law? I'm sorry but that's a very big statement. 

While your sweet innocence at the thought that government authorities are incapable of breaking the law is touching, I have not (nor I think has anyone else) in this instance accused any government or anyone else of breaking the law.

What people have pointed out is that though there is no legal requirement as far as the government and its treaties are concerned,  in practice air travellers between the UK and Ireland, and indeed in my experience flying internally within the UK, are required  to show a passport or other photo id in the airport or at the departure gate or both. You can stand your ground and argue and good luck with that. However I am not sure that there is any law that says private organisations such as airlines and airports may not, as part of their own security arrangements and to confirm that the passenger is who they say they are, can't make this a condition.

 

[Francis Albert]

17 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

While your sweet innocence at the thought that government authorities are incapable of breaking the law is touching, I have not (nor I think has anyone else) in this instance accused any government or anyone else of breaking the law.

What people have pointed out is that though there is no legal requirement as far as the government and its treaties are concerned,  in practice air travellers between the UK and Ireland, and indeed in my experience flying internally within the UK, are required  to show a passport or other photo id in the airport or at the departure gate or both. You can stand your ground and argue and good luck with that. However I am not sure that there is any law that says private organisations such as airlines and airports may not, as part of their own security arrangements and to confirm that the passenger is who they say they are, can't make this a condition.

 

PS Aplogies I see that Jambo-Jimbo did talk about "government authorities on the ground". Most experiences recounted referred to airport checks by airlines not border guards.

[jake]

32 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

And more likely to get worst in the coming race to the bottom.

Not if we vote for otherwise.

 

[doctor jambo]

2 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

It's interesting that Tim Shipman of the Sunday Times - a man well connected to the big Brexit players - reported yesterday that Sajid Javid has called for a post-Brexit shock and awe budget slashing taxes further and ripping up environmental and workers protections to boost the economy...

 

 

...interestingly the TUC and other groups warned this was more than likely if we voted Leave.

I've been saying this repeatedly for some time, including on this thread.

The UK is small enough to do it too. 60 million people, with  a financial centre and multiple off shore tax havens and Scottish LLP shelters -  helllloooooo tax haven central