UK Politics & Current Affairs Discussion & DIY Home Improvement Thread

[Svip]

Aren't the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the Common Travel Area? A similar concept to the Schengen Agreement and the old Benelux Economic Union and the Nordic Council[1]? Surely, if the UK leaves the EU, they are not leaving the CTA either. I am definitely not imagining border checks between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Indeed, as far as I understand, the only real indicator that you cross from the UK into Ireland is that the speed limit signs are suddenly in a proper unit of measurement.

 

[1] Yes, the Benelux Economic Union and the Nordic Council still exists, but their passport free zones have been superseded by the Schengen Agreement.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Svip

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

The CTA will remain in effect in the UK at least, the 'out' campaign try and propose that leaving will close borders and this fact just isn't true at all....

[sivispacem]

The "out" argument seem to want to have their cake and eat it on this particular issue. They seem to want to maintain free movement of Britons to Europe but somehow bar the inverse. And let's be frank, that just isn't going to happen.

 

And that's even without raising the question of what we're going to do with hundreds of thousands of EU citizens resident in the UK, taxpayers in the UK, and suddenly no longer allowed to work here due to the cessation of the free movement of labour. What about those sectors of the day economy reliant on that labour?

 

It's facile, ill-founded and utterly incoherent.

[GTA_stu]

You are ignoring the case of Norway in your views. They are surrounded by EU nations as we are, not part of the EU as we would be, yet they have still had to agree to the free movement of citizens as it is with the rest of the EU, so why would we get 'special dispensation' over the same agreement? Especially with the situation over Eire, apart from flying, nearly every ferry and road crossing uses British roads, do travellers using those routes to reach another part of the EU need UK travel papers showing that?

 

The debate has already realised this issue in Northern Ireland, since memories of the 'Bad Times Borders' and Checkpoints of the 80's are still fairly fresh in memories.

 

I don't know the exact details of Norway's situation or how it was brokered, but I'm assuming they were/are ok with the free movement of people aspect. I believe the Swiss recently tried to impose limits on the freedom of movement agreement and Brussel's response was that if they do then they'll lose out on other agreements and will essentially be penalised. It may well be that the EU does choose to put up barriers if we refuse to be party to the free movement of people. If that's the way it goes that's the way it goes. I don't see it as an issue. Not that it'll come to it, but I'd happily have the economy suffer a lot if it meant we get control of our borders and get our sovereignty back. Although I doubt long term it will have that big of an effect. We'll be fine either way, living standards and our quality of life aren't going to go careering off a cliff just because the EU decides to impose tariffs or something. We managed fine on our own before the EU and we'll manage fine if we get out of it.

Edited February 24, 2016 by GTA_stu

[sivispacem]

The fact you seem to care more about kicking foreigners out of the country than you do maintaining the quality of life of citizens suggests to me you don't really have the best interests of the nation at heart when arguing to leave. And actually the potential effects that trade barriers would have are absolutely enormous. No-one seems to have considered the costs of having to renegotiate our entire relationship with every European Union nation likely on an individual basis if we don't want to be bound by free movement of citizens.

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

 

You are ignoring the case of Norway in your views. They are surrounded by EU nations as we are, not part of the EU as we would be, yet they have still had to agree to the free movement of citizens as it is with the rest of the EU, so why would we get 'special dispensation' over the same agreement? Especially with the situation over Eire, apart from flying, nearly every ferry and road crossing uses British roads, do travellers using those routes to reach another part of the EU need UK travel papers showing that?

The debate has already realised this issue in Northern Ireland, since memories of the 'Bad Times Borders' and Checkpoints of the 80's are still fairly fresh in memories.

 

I don't know the exact details of Norway's situation or how it was brokered, but I'm assuming they were/are ok with the free movement of people aspect. I believe the Swiss recently tried to impose limits on the freedom of movement agreement and Brussel's response was that if they do then they'll lose out on other agreements and will essentially be penalised. It may well be that the EU does choose to put up barriers if we refuse to be party to the free movement of people. If that's the way it goes that's the way it goes. I don't see it as an issue. Not that it'll come to it, but I'd happily have the economy suffer a lot if it meant we get control of our borders and get our sovereignty back. Although I doubt long term it will have that big of an effect. We'll be fine either way, living standards and our quality of life aren't going to go careering off a cliff just because the EU decides to impose tariffs or something. We managed fine on our own before the EU and we'll manage fine if we get out of it.

You cannot pick and choose just one section to aim at and hope for an ideal solution.... You sound like a press officer for Nigel Farage when you talk like that.

 

The UK relies on trade worldwide and not just to the EU. The EU is currently among our biggest EU trade partners and basically sticking two fingers up at them isn't going to make the best impression. Plus the EU backed companies will then become one of the biggest rivals to worldwide trade in other areas where the vote leave campaign hopes we will pick up the slack....

 

We will not be able to compete on any scale, so we will lose even more trade opportunities as a result. This ensures we will not be heading for a small recession, you're looking at something as big, or worse than 2008 that will pretty much guarantee any progression made since then will be for diddly squat! To make matters worse for you, you ain't gonna solve any immigration issues either, the border will still be as open as it was.

 

Just making that clear....

Edited February 24, 2016 by Sikee Atric

[GTA_stu]

Sooo... the budget. Thoughts?

 

The cuts to disability benefits in particular are very unpopular it seems. Especially given that the budget has benefited higher earners in a lot of ways. Making disabled people poorer, especially when they're already some of the most disadvantaged and poorest members of society, whilst giving tax breaks to the rich. Are you having a laugh? It's a f*cking disgrace.

 

I wish there was an economically left leaning political party that was nationalist and against high immigration. Like socialist AND nationalist, national socialist if you will. They could even call themselves the Naz- nvm. I do wish I had some better options though, Labour and Lib Dems hate the British people and are nice people, UKIP love the country and it's people but they're a bit too libertarian for my liking. Tories (The Cameronites anyways) are looking like a horrible mongoloid with the worst of both atm. Don't even mention those f*cking Green off their free range trolleys super nice people. I still prefer UKIP out of them all, but I do feel a bit unsatisfied really.

Edited March 18, 2016 by GTA_stu

[make total destroy]

nice people

nice people.

Are you a chicken?

 

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

Sooo... the budget. Thoughts?

 

The cuts to disability benefits in particular are very unpopular it seems. Especially given that the budget has benefited higher earners in a lot of ways. Making disabled people poorer, especially when they're already some of the most disadvantaged and poorest members of society, whilst giving tax breaks to the rich. Are you having a laugh? It's a f*cking disgrace.

 

I wish there was an economically left leaning political party that was nationalist and against high immigration. Like socialist AND nationalist, national socialist if you will. They could even call themselves the Naz- nvm. I do wish I had some better options though, Labour and Lib Dems hate the British people and are nice people, UKIP love the country and it's people but they're a bit too libertarian for my liking. Tories (The Cameronites anyways) are looking like a horrible mongoloid with the worst of both atm. Don't even mention those f*cking Green off their free range trolleys super nice people. I still prefer UKIP out of them all, but I do feel a bit unsatisfied really.

 

You like UKIP the most? Lord, help us....

 

They do not love the British people, they're the most obnoxious of all the political parties in the UK, since they put the British People first, at the cost of every other nation in the world. They have no morals, no sense of international affairs and no qualms about who they step on to get power! Nigel Farage plays the hero, but his tax affairs, use of illegal immigrants as cleaners and lack of unity with his own party make him much more the pantomime villain.

 

He's resigned twice and offered countless more, but every time the Zombie Membership of UKIP has brought him back as Leader too, simply because they do not have another member capable of representing the party since they put their foot constantly in it regarding racism. Mind you, last Euro Elections even Farage screwed up a radio interview and slurred the Polish as a second class people....

 

This is all before we kick their biggest political donor too as that is Richard Desmond, aka Dirty Desmond. His legitimate business is the Express Group Newspapers and that looks all fine and dandy, but Dirty Des has a secret he tries to bury when editing his hackrag paper, he made his first fortune in the porn industry and his company still owns the Television X brand! So Farage's biggest donor is a porn baron, not quite the right man to edit a national newspaper if you ask me!

 

So you see, beneath the shell UKIP is the biggest cesspool in British Politics. Their legitimate efforts are veiling a very dark secret too.... They are the only UK party that ban members from the BNP, why? Because a few years ago the BNP broke up when it became financially broke and overnight, half their previous members joined UKIP. So a significant fraction of the UKIP membership is racist and the party does everything it can to hide this from everyone, scared of repercussions if it ever leaks out. It is known that one UKIP Councillor was caught on an EDL march, he got arrested during their march and his baraclava was no protection from then on.

 

So think carefully before backing the band of vacuous heroes, porn barons and racists that fill the UKIP ranks....

[BRITLAND]

Ian Duncan Smith resigns as Work & Pensions Secretary, even he thought the cuts in disability benefits were a disgrace, now that's saying something.

 

Stu, look up Blue Labour, they might be what your looking for.

[Abel.]

As much as I dislike UKIP, Stu does have a point. The Labour party has alienated much of its traditional voter base, forcing many in the UK to turn to UKIP. Personally I really don't think UKIP has their best interests at heart, or that they're even capable of running a country, so this is a sad state of affairs. There's just far too much idealism and self-indulgence coming from the Left. Corbyn isn't reassuring people when he appears to care more about weakening the UK's international standing (scrapping Trident, joint administration of the Falklands and so on) and bowing to the whims of the metropolitan elite instead of workers in the UK. I respect him for sticking to his guns and promoting genuine ideals at such a high governmental position, but he's just not what the Labour party needs right now. Given that he openly sympathises with the IRA, Hezbollah and Hamas I certainly won't be voting Labour anytime soon. I mean I see the dangerous apologism for terrorism coming out of Sweden and I don't want that sort of thing in the UK. This is an area where the Conservative party really has its head screwed on right, loathe though I am to support the party in any capacity.

 

 

At the end of the day there's a time for peace and a time for war. As much as I admire pacifists for their idealism, now is not the time to beat our swords into plowshares.

Edited March 21, 2016 by Failure

[Clem Fandango]

Joint administration of the Falklands is a ridiculous policy? Scrapping trident? And it's 'metropolitan elities' who support this while working people bay for an ICMB launch station next to their house?

[GTA_stu]

Give me one good reason why the Argies should have a role in the administration of the Falklands.

[Abel.]

Mel, the issue with any talk of joint administration is that the people of the Falklands voted overwhelmingly for the islands to be British and they all identify as British. The islands were basically uninhabited before being colonised and there really is no reason for the status of the islands to change. For the sake of the sense of security amongst the islanders if nothing else, nothing should change there. The war is in recent memory for them so I very much doubt they'd be happy with any Argentine influence. It would be a good way to ease relations with the Argentines and it's always nice to have rapprochment (Jerusalem and Ankara recently, Washington and Havana over the last few years), but it wouldn't be worth it given that the Argentines have no right to the islands and it would be a political mess.

 

 

Nuclear disarmament should be a global initiative, but that's not reality. When North Korea, Russia and Pakistan have (albeit rudimentary) nuclear capabilities and Iran is certainly somewhat interested, it doesn't make any sense for the UK to disarm. Indeed, this would be a destabilising factor far beyond the UK'S shores.

 

 

To play Devil's Advocate, I think the world does need a certain amount of idealism. The concept of a right to self determination and universal human rights were probably seen as idealistic at one point. Right now though nobody can demy that were living in a rapidly changing, unstable world. Just look at how the world's changed over the last few years alone. I don't think now is the time for disarmament.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Failure

[Svip]

Give me one good reason why the Argies should have a role in the administration of the Falklands.

 

Because the British Empire no longer exist and it seems ridiculous to maintain a tiny group of people that far away, where the costs far outweigh the benefits? As far as I can gather, the UK spends about £20,000 per citizen on the Falkland Islands to protect them. Doesn't that seem like a waste of money?

 

Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper to relocate the people (say to Britain) and give Argentina the islands? You'll improve your relations with Argentina and the rest of South America. You'll save about £60 million on the budget and those money are going to come in handy, if the British people decide to leave the EU.

[GTA_stu]

The cost to protect them is less than 0.15% of our defence budget, so it's not really like it's a huge financial burden. It's a cost I know the majority of British citizens are happy to pay to protect them. So it's not an issue in the slightest. The massive exclusive economic area surrounding them is also home to proven oil and gas reserves, and there's potentially a lot more. There are agreements in place to share profits with the UK government, so that would offset the already relatively low costs even more.

 

It's not about money though. They are British citizens and that is British territory, which we've already fought to protect at the cost of hundreds of lives. Not to mention the forced relocation of a people when they have a legitimate right to live somewhere isn't morally or legally defensible. I'd like to think we have more integrity than to barter all that away for economic gain, especially when it amounts to loose change.

 

Our relations with South America are fine, and the UK doesn't particularly care about improving our relations with a country that claims our sovereign territory when they have no basis to do so.

Edited March 22, 2016 by GTA_stu

[Svip]

Quite frankly, I don't care. If the UK wants to maintain the islands, they can keep doing that. It's not that a huge cost out of the defence budget, it's merely that a few citizens effectively cost more than other citizens. And sharply more for that matter.

 

As an example, I would support Greenlandic and Faroese independence from Denmark, because they are huge expense burdens with little benefit (although, Greenland may have oil). But because I know how terrible they would do as independent nations, I do not believe it is the right thing to do.

 

Effectively, let go of overseas territories that can be self-sustaining. Economics is not the reason, but rather how I started out my previous post; imperial relics ought to be a thing of the past. But then again, I don't care much for the nation state. Just as long as there is a state to take care of its people, it doesn't need to be based on culture, history or ethnicity.

 

Borders are arbitrary and can have negative impacts on people. Even though Sweden and Denmark have been in the Nordic Council since the 1950s and are both in the EU, Malmö haven't fully experienced the benefits of being so close to a capital (Copenhagen) as it would had it been Danish territory rather than Swedish territory.

 

Cross-border metropolitan areas are great examples of the need to abolish nation states, but if we can't do that, then at least move the borders so the areas belong to one state.

 

I mean, wouldn't the Falkland Islands have an easier time trading with Argentina and the rest of South America under a joint administration or full Argentine administration?

[Abel.]

Quite frankly, I don't care. If the UK wants to maintain the islands, they can keep doing that. It's not that a huge cost out of the defence budget, it's merely that a few citizens effectively cost more than other citizens. And sharply more for that matter.

 

As an example, I would support Greenlandic and Faroese independence from Denmark, because they are huge expense burdens with little benefit (although, Greenland may have oil). But because I know how terrible they would do as independent nations, I do not believe it is the right thing to do.

 

Effectively, let go of overseas territories that can be self-sustaining. Economics is not the reason, but rather how I started out my previous post; imperial relics ought to be a thing of the past. But then again, I don't care much for the nation state. Just as long as there is a state to take care of its people, it doesn't need to be based on culture, history or ethnicity.

 

Borders are arbitrary and can have negative impacts on people. Even though Sweden and Denmark have been in the Nordic Council since the 1950s and are both in the EU, Malmö haven't fully experienced the benefits of being so close to a capital (Copenhagen) as it would had it been Danish territory rather than Swedish territory.

 

Cross-border metropolitan areas are great examples of the need to abolish nation states, but if we can't do that, then at least move the borders so the areas belong to one state.

 

I mean, wouldn't the Falkland Islands have an easier time trading with Argentina and the rest of South America under a joint administration or full Argentine administration?

 

None of this matters in the slightest as it's not at all in line with the prevailing way of thinking in the UK.

 

 

 

 

Borders are arbitrary and can have negative impacts on people

 

I can understand why someone from a Nordic country would have this view, but it's categorically untrue elsewhere. The borders in Ireland are certainly not arbitrary and were painstakingly considered.

 

 

 

 

Effectively, let go of overseas territories that can be self-sustaining. Economics is not the reason, but rather how I started out my previous post; imperial relics ought to be a thing of the past.

 

Not sure how the Falklands are an imperial relic given that the islands were uninhabited before colonial powers took an interest in the islands. Any talk of handing administration over is tantamount to giving legitimacy to a completely false claim to the islands. Obviously nowadays Britain isn't going to go taking over islands at random but the facts on the ground now are that the people of the Falklands like living there, and like having British identity/citizenship. The reasons you gave for ending this situation (ranging from severing ties with the islands to forced resettlement) don't even exist in the mind of the average citizen of the UK or the Falklands. You're clearly well versed on geopolitics but it's not right to just impose your view of a particular, emotive situation on the group that actually lives with it. I've spoken to people who claim they could sort the Middle East out in no time, but it's easy to say that when you don't have to live with the consequences.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Failure

[Svip]

You misunderstand. Stu asked for a single reason. I gave one. I was speaking entirely from a idealogical viewpoint. I know it was never going to happen. Just like Gibraltar will remain on British hands, even though the Spanish claim over that is far more sound than the Argentine claim over the Falklands.

 

Similarly, I understand that the internal EU borders will not be redrawn. Well not in the foreseeable future, anyway. At least not without force.

 

I am also amused that you brought up Ireland, because I don't remember there being a metropolitan area over the UK-Irish border. And it seems like one of the few examples of an actual non-arbitrary border. Or would you suggest the continental European borders aren't arbitrary?

Edited March 22, 2016 by Svip

[Abel.]

On the continent a lot of the borders have been decided by conflict. In some cases it's been arbitrary, sure (Upper Silesia is a good example). Nowadays I'd say that (in Western Europe at least), Europeans are happy with the borders as they are and wouldn't want them changed.

 

 

You're right in saying that a lot of borders are arbitrary or have been determined by war, but the concept of a border is not arbitrary. People want secure borders, despite how naive this may seem given historical context.

[Clem Fandango]

You talk about borders like they're normal and natural. They've always existed but it was an issue of not being able to move armies across them, not individuals. Militarised borders restricting movement are a recent thing.

 

 

 

The borders in Ireland are certainly not arbitrary and were painstakingly considered.

Right, but how is it not arbitrary? It's like going from the US to Canada, you don't notice.

 

I also don't see how British policy can have any importance to an island off the coast of South America. They have even less to do with Argentina, but something tells me this is just a nationalist rallying point and has nothing to do with finding the most sensible way for these people to be governed.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Melchior

[GTA_stu]

but something tells me this is just a nationalist rallying point and has nothing to do with finding the most sensible way for these people to be governed.

 

The Falklands govern themselves, which is surely the most sensible option. It's not like they're part of a constituency in Cornwall and there's this awkward messy relationship or something. It's matters of foreign policy and defence which the UK manages, which is also sensible because they're incredibly small and also still want to be British and so are therefore under British jurisdiction, albeit with a great deal of autonomy. The Falklanders are happy, and UK citizens are happy. So what's the problem. Nationalists care about the Falklands because they are a part of our nation, the fact they're thousands of miles away and separated by an ocean doesn't matter. You talk about it as if people just use it as an excuse to get nationalistic and don't care about what's best for the islanders. If they didn't want to be British any more and wanted independence we wouldn't make them stay. The Argentines obviously don't care about the Islanders, all they care about is unifying their lands, even though that makes very little sense given the facts.

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

You are all arguing over the Falklands, but Gibraltar has issues as well.

 

Both Spain and the UK are within the EU, but Gibraltar remains a very sore diplomatic issue, just as much as The Falklands are between Argentina and the UK.

[am30]

 

Give me one good reason why the Argies should have a role in the administration of the Falklands.

 

Because the British Empire no longer exist and it seems ridiculous to maintain a tiny group of people that far away, where the costs far outweigh the benefits? As far as I can gather, the UK spends about £20,000 per citizen on the Falkland Islands to protect them. Doesn't that seem like a waste of money?

 

Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper to relocate the people (say to Britain) and give Argentina the islands? You'll improve your relations with Argentina and the rest of South America. You'll save about £60 million on the budget and those money are going to come in handy, if the British people decide to leave the EU.

 

 

Well they are part of Argentina but we stole the Falklands because there is potentially quite a lot of oil in that region so it's ours now.

[sivispacem]

Given we've maintained claims to the Falklands since 1771, and de facto controlled the Falklands since 1832, I don't think arguing we initially did do because of oil makes much logical sense.

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

The historical significance was because it was a very handy resupply post for the British Naval fleet as The Falklands contain several natural harbors that are well protected from the fierce storms of the South Atlantic.

 

The families that helped resupply the fleet in the early days are the same families that inhabit the island today. And although they are small scale livestock farmers and a very agricultural based economy, they still see themselves as a British colony, not because they are told to be, because they choose to be.

 

Today, the island is an important staging post for all British Antartic efforts as well as still remaining an important safe harbor for ships in the South Atlantic storms. Simply because they are a small outpost in the ocean gives no country the right to ignore their wishes. All nations treat colony groups the same and respect the wishes of the inhabitants.

[CheesepuffScott]

I voted UKIP in 2015, will vote for them again in 2020. I like their policies in general.

[Fonz]

^Member title checks out.

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

It's been dead in here and so much has happened in the last few days alone!

 

The Eu vote simmering, the upcoming PCC and local elections on Thursday and now Labour having another implosion over race rows....

 

Is the US election smothering all that?

[GTA_stu]

I just love the fact that for the past 12+ hours "Livingstone stands by Hitler comments" has been the main headline on the BBC news site. It's just such an absurd and preposterous and quite hilarious headline. It's also the fact that you usually expect the right wing to be responsible for this sort of thing, and now it's the left who are getting it. Shameful joy as the Germans might say.

 

Seriously though, Labour and a lot of the far left do seem to have issues with anti-semitism. Trying to pander to Muslims and having a significant minority of Muslims as members is a big part of that. I'm still not sure what point Ken was trying to make with his "Hitler supported Zionism" line. I've listened to him say this with the context in the radio interview numerous times to try figure it out, and I just can't.

 

Here it is if you're interested. The relevant bit starts at 0:50 and the line is spoken at 1:08

 

https://youtu.be/KrH0SXGwiPo